Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 78-4290; Unpublished
Judges Maher, Bronson, and Moore; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Arbitration (MCL 600.5001, et seq.)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Arbitration of Uninsured Motorist Claims
CASE SUMMARY:
The Court of Appeals unanimously refused to vacate the decision of an uninsured motorist arbitration panel which had ruled that in order for a plaintiff to recover uninsured motorist benefits, the injured plaintiff had to meet the threshold of §3135(1) of the no-fault statute. The Court noted that this case involved "statutory" rather than "common law" arbitration and the grounds for vacating such an arbitration decision are very limited. In addition, the Court noted that at the time the arbitration panel rendered its decision, the alleged legal error involved was not necessarily "clear." The Court noted that the Supreme Court's decision in the Shavers case which held in dicta that uninsured tortfeasors have no immunity, was not released until after the arbitration panel had rendered its decision. Also, there were a few cases from the Court of Appeals that suggested that immunity might be available to the uninsured motorist (Schigur v Westbend and McKendrick v Petrucci).
[Comment: Although the Court did not specifically state that the arbitration decision on the immunity issue was legally erroneous, it appeared to intimate that conclusion. If so interpreted, it joins the decisions of the Court of Appeals in Mays v DAIIE, item number 131, and Smith v Sutherland, item number 237, which have squarely so held.]
