Michigan Supreme Court; Docket Nos. 58567 and 60967
Judges __________; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: __________; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Specific Exclusions from Motor Vehicle Definition [§3101(2)(e)]
PIP Benefit Deductibles [§3109(3)]
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [§3115(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In a long awaited unanimous Opinion regarding the right of motorcyclists to recover PIP benefits and the priorities applicable to such claims the Michigan Supreme Court, per Justice Levin, held as follows:
1. Motorcyclists, like all others suffering bodily injury as a result of an accident involving a motor vehicle, are entitled to no-fault benefits. The Court held that the Act may not be construed as excluding the motorcyclists from its coverage for all purposes merely because motorcyclists are excluded from the statutory definition of a motor vehicle.
2. The statutory scheme which allows motorcyclists to recover no-fault benefits when insured in motor vehicle accidents without requiring them to maintain no-fault insurance does not deny automobile drivers of equal protection of the law or due process of law.
3. A motorcyclist insured in a motor vehicle accident must first look to his own insurer if he has one. If he does not, then the motorcyclist looks to the insurer of a relative domiciled in the same household. It is only when there is no policy issued to anyone in his household that the statute permits the motorcyclist to claim benefits from the insurer of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. In so holding the Court stated, "It is our understanding of the legislative purpose that it was intended that insured persons who are insured or whose family member is insured for no-fault benefits would have primary resort to their own insurer. Since their own insurer would be primarily responsible, there would be an incentive for the insurer to deal promptly and fairly with the customer. Additionally, making the owners' or family members' insurer primary may reduce the cost of insurance by facilitating the use of deductibles to avoid duplicative coverage. A construction of the act which would require resort to the insurer of the involved motor vehicle whenever there is a one vehicle accident would not be consistent with those purposes."
4. Section 3109(3) of the no-fault act which authorizes the Insurance Commissioner to approve deductibles is not an invalid delegation of authority. Therefore, the Porter case is remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine whether or not the $5,000 deductible policy provision applicable to motorcycles involved in automobile accidents is otherwise invalid. The Court of Appeals in the Porter case below had held that the delegation to the Insurance Commissioner of the power to approve deductibles was unconstitutional because it did not provide standards to guide his exercise of discretion. The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court noted that "Whether a due process test or a safeguards-against-abuse -of-discretion test is applied, the statutory standards and procedures are sufficient to sustain the delegation. In authorizing deductibles the commissioner is guided by the purpose of the no-fault act and the general provisions of the Insurance Code." In so holding, the Supreme Court remanded this issue back to the Court of Appeals to consider, among other things, whether or not the approval of the deductible violated the equal protection rights of some motorcycle operators by creating two distinct classes of motorcycle operators: (a) those who claim under §3114(1) of the statute and thus are subject to the $5,000 deductible provision and (b) those who claim no-fault benefits from the insurer of the involved motor vehicle and thus are not subject to the $5,000 deductible provision.
