Macomb County Circuit Court; Docket No. 81-9811-CZ; Unpublished
Judge John G. Roskopp; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In a 26-page Opinion regarding an issue of first impression, Macomb County Circuit Judge John Roskopp held that it was a violation of due process for a no-fault insurance company, pursuant to the terms of the Essential Insurance Act and related amendments, to raise insurance premiums or cancel policies because of a customer's accident record. The plaintiff was advised by defendant, DAIIE, that her policy would be canceled because she was involved in three accidents in a five month period. The defendant had determined unilaterally that the plaintiff was "substantially at fault" in these accidents and, accordingly, placed her in a higher risk insurance category. Plaintiff was advised that coverage would be available, however, at a much higher rate.
Judge Roskopp noted that the availability of insurance, as fair and equitable rates, was a prerequisite to the privilege of operating a vehicle in this state. The compulsory nature of insurance coverage renders the actions of insurance companies in providing such coverage "state action" for purposes of application of the due process clause. Judge Roskopp also noted that a determination of fault in auto accidents is a proper function of the judiciary and not the insurance company. The insurance company is a profit making entity and is obviously very concerned with the amount of premiums it receives. Making determinations regarding whether an insured is "at fault" in an accident will by necessity affect the amount of premiums the insurer collects.
Judge Roskopp found that to the extent the Essential Insurance Act permitted increasing premiums or canceling policies on the basis of a customer's accident record, it was unconstitutional. The Court noted, "The holdings in this opinion, however, as to the unconstitutionality of the Act are binding not only on DAIIE but on all others who issue insurance in this state. Quite obviously, by way of observation of the value of precedent, unless and until an appellate court reverses the holding of this Court, any insurer who refuses to issue no-fault coverage to the Flumignans on the basis of Ida Flumignan's three collisions does so at its own peril."
