Michigan Court of Appeals, Docket No. 21238-39,22918; Published
Chief Judge Lesinski; (With J. Burns Concurring)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation; 65 Mich App 355; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Compulsory Insurance Requirements for Owners or Registrants of Motor Vehicles Required to Be Registered [§3101(1)]
General / Miscellaneous [§3101]
General / Miscellaneous [§3102]
General / Miscellaneous [§3107]
Standards for Deductibility of State and Federal Governmental Benefits [§3109(1)]
PIP Benefit Deductibles [§3109(3)]
Disqualification for Nonresidents [§3113(c)]
General / Miscellaneous [§3116]
General / Miscellaneous [§3121]
General / Miscellaneous [§3123]
General / Miscellaneous [§3125]
General / Miscellaneous [§3127]
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
The Michigan Court of Appeals reviewed Judge Gilmore's decision and held in the following way:
1. It was inappropriate of Judge Gilmore to grant a declaratory judgment regarding the following sections of the no-fault law: §3107(b) - Replacement Services; §3109(3) - Empowering the Insurance Commissioner to Approve Deductibles in Excess of $300; §3109(1) - Deduction for Governmental Benefits; §3113(c) -and §3102(1) - non-resident transient motorists; and §3116 - Reimbursement of PIP benefits.
2. The strict scrutiny test was not properly applied by Judge Gilmore.
3. The provisions of §3135 which abolish tort recovery for most personal injuries is not unconstitutional.
4. The exclusion of motorcycles from the compulsory insurance requirements of the act pursuant to §3102 (2) was not violative of equal protection. The act's failure to extend benefits to motorcycles was improperly heard by the trial court, however.
5. The property protection insurance sections, §3121, §3123, §3125, and §3127, constitute an unconstitutional distinction without a reasonable basis. These sections are severable and are hereinafter void and of no force in this state.
