Muskegon County Circuit Court; Docket No. 77-11024-NI; Unpublished
Judge John H. Piercey
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Disqualification for Nonresidents [§3113(c)]
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In an Opinion from the bench summarized in a letter to the author, Judge Piercey held that the tort liability bar contained in §3135 of the no-fault statute, when read in conjunction with the PIP disqualification provisions of §3113(c) was unconstitutional as applied to this nonresident plaintiff.
Plaintiff, a resident of the State of Illinois, who did not own a motor vehicle and was not covered by any motor vehicle insurance policy, was injured in Muskegon County while a passenger in a vehicle registered in the State of Illinois. The Illinois vehicle had not been in Michigan for more than 30 days and therefore did not come within the provisions of §3102. Furthermore, the Illinois vehicle was not covered by an insurer filing a certification in compliance with §3163.
In a pretrial motion, the defendant driver of the Michigan registered insured vehicle which struck the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding sought the exclusion of all proofs or claims relating to medical expenses or wage losses for the first three years after the accident.
Judge Piercey noted that under §3113(c) a person who is not a resident of Michigan and who is an occupant of a motor vehicle not registered in this state nor insured by a certified insurer is not entitled to recover personal insurance protection benefits. Construing the effect of §3113(c) and §3135, Judge Piercey ruled that because the act abolishes tort liability while at the same time precluding recovery for economic loss to the limited class of which plaintiff has a member, the no-fault act unconstitutionally interfered with plaintiff’s right to travel freely between Michigan and other states. Accordingly, Judge Piercey ordered that plaintiff could proceed at trial on a general tort liability basis and recover all traditional tort damages. Following Judge Piercey's ruling, the case was settled for defendant's policy limits.
[Author's Comment: It appears that this is only the second ruling by a Michigan Court dealing with this particular right to travel issue. The first ruling was by Judge Gilmore in the trial court decision in Shavers (item number 3). However, that issue was dismissed by stipulation from the Shavers litigation when it was remanded to the Circuit Court.]
