Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.310473; Published
Judges Sawyer, Meter, and Donofrio; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: __________; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Disqualification for Non-Residents [§3113(c)]
Obligation of Admitted Insurers to Pay PIP Benefits on Behalf of Non-Residents Injured in Michigan [§3163(1)]
Requirement that Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [§3148(1)]
Conduct Establishing Unreasonable Delay or Denial [§3148(1)]
Bona Fide Factual Uncertainty/Statutory Construction Defense [§3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published Opinion by Judge Sawyer, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition granted in favor of the plaintiff against defendant Auto-Owners, holding that a non-resident motorcyclist was entitled to personal injury protection (PIP) benefits where he was involved in a motor vehicle accident in this State, where his motorcycle was not insured by an insurer that had filed a certification under §3163(1), but where he was insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by a different insurer which had filed such a certification.
Plaintiff was a resident of Kentucky. His motorcycle was registered and insured in Kentucky by Progressive Northern Insurance Company, which had not filed a certification under §3163(1). Plaintiff also owned motor vehicles in Kentucky insured by State Farm Insurance Company which was a §3163 insurer. The collision occurred in Michigan between plaintiff’s motorcycle and a motor vehicle insured by defendant Auto-Owners.
Auto-Owners claimed that plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits by reason of the provisions of §3113(c) which precludes PIP benefits if:
“(c) The person was not a resident of this state, was an occupant of a motor vehicle or motorcycle not registered in this state, and was not insured by an insurer which has filed a certification in compliance with section 3163.” (emphasis added)
The provisions of MCL 500.3163 require that an insurer authorized to transact automobile liability insurance and personal and property protection insurance in Michigan must file and maintain a written certification that any accidental bodily injury occurring in this state, arising from the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle by an out-of-state resident who is insured under its automobile liability insurance policies, is subject to the personal and property protection insurance system under this act.
There was no dispute that plaintiff’s motorcycle insurer had not filed the §3163 certification. However, plaintiff’s automobile insurer had filed such a certification. The question which presented an issue of first impression for the court, was whether it was necessary for the motorcycle insurer to have filed the certification in order for plaintiff to be eligible to receive PIP benefits, because it was the motorcycle, and not plaintiff’s automobile, which was involved in the accident. The court agreed with the trial court that it was not required that the motorcycle be insured by an insurance company that had filed a §3163 insurer, as long as the plaintiff’s automobile was insured by such an insurer.
The court found the terms of §3113(c) to be plain and unambiguous. For plaintiff to be excluded from PIP benefits, all three conditions of §3113(c) must be met. In this case, the third condition was not met because plaintiff was, in fact, insured by an insurer which had filed a certification in compliance with §3163, namely his auto insurer. The court held there was nothing in the language of §3113(c) that required the insurer be the one who provided insurance for the motorcycle involved in the accident. Accordingly, Auto-Owners was responsible for paying plaintiff’s PIP benefits.
The court also addressed the issue of attorney fees under §3148(1) of the No-Fault Act. Even though this case involved a question of first impression, the court upheld the trial court award of attorney fees, stating it was not persuaded that the defendant had raised a legitimate question of statutory construction in this case. The actual language of §3113(c) does not establish the requirement that the out-of-state vehicle occupied by the claimant must be the one for which the insurer has filed a certification. The court stated it was unwilling to adopt a rule that a party has presented a legitimate question of statutory interpretation any time the matter involves a question of first impression under the No-Fault Act.
