Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 85828; Unpublished
Judges Danhof, Bronson, and Gillespie; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Arbitration of Uninsured Motorist Claims
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld an arbitrators' award of uninsured motorist benefits despite a claim by the insurer that the insured had not satisfied the threshold requirements for non-economic contained in Section 3135(1) of the No-Fault Act.
The insured, Gregory Hill, was stopped at a red light when his car was hit from behind by an uninsured driver. He developed pain in his neck and shoulder region, as well a headache. He made a claim under the uninsured motorist coverage of his policy, and the arbitrators awarded $11,000. In making the award, the arbitrators held that the threshold requirements of §3135(1) did not apply to this claim. The trial court confirmed the arbitrators' award, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court of Appeals noted that there is presently a conflict of authority on the issue whether the tort threshold requirements apply to uninsured motorist claims. In Caplan v DAIIE (Item No. 375), the Court of Appeals, in reliance upon language used by the Supreme Court in Bradley v Mid-Century Insurance (Item No. 312), held that the threshold requirement for non-economic loss recovery in the No-Fault Act would apply even in cases against uninsured motorists. However, two subsequent decisions, Jones v DAIIE (Item No. 727) and Stephenson v Associated General (Item No. 889), have held that the issue is determined by Citizens Insurance Company v Turtle, 411 Mich 536 (1981) which those panels interpreted to hold that the protection of the No-Fault Act is not extended to anyone not contributing to the system.
The Court of Appeals in this case joins with the panels in Jones and Stephenson in holding that the No-Fault Act and its protections are available only to those who have obtained the required no-fault insurance or other security.
