Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 108397; Unpublished
Judges Shepherd, Doctoroff, and T. Gillespie; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Reimbursement of Member Claims [§3104]
Nonresident Claimants [§3104]
Obligations of Admitted Insurers to Pay PIP Benefits on Behalf of Nonresidents Injured in Michigan [§3163(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's finding that the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association was required to indemnify Continental Insurance for losses in excess of $250,000 incurred in connection with a policy of insurance issued to a non-Michigan resident. The court's holding was based upon the recent decision of In Re: Certified Question, Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company v Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (Item No. 1323).
Plaintiff’s insured, Beatrice Barbel, a California resident, was involved in an automobile accident in Michigan which rendered her a quadriplegic. She was insured under her husband's policy, which had been written by Continental Insurance, which had the obligation to pay her no-fault benefits pursuant to the foreign insurer certification requirements of §3163. When the payments exceeded $250,000, Continental filed a claim of reimbursement under the provisions of the Catastrophic Claims Act, §3104(2). The defendant denied the claim pursuant to its plan of operation which precluded reimbursement to insurers for claims paid to out-of-state residents.
In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals relied upon the recent holding of the Supreme Court in Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company, supra, which held that the No-Fault Act does not require the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association to indemnify its member insurers for losses paid to insureds who are not considered residents of this state. A term "resident" referred not only to those insureds who actually live within the state, but also to insureds who do not live within the state, but who are nonetheless required to register and insure their vehicles in this state. Here, Beatrice Barbel was not a resident of this state as the Supreme Court has interpreted that term in the context of the No-Fault Act. Therefore, the Catastrophic Claims Association had no obligation to reimburse Continental Insurance Company.
