Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 26174; Published
Judge Allen, Burns, and Beasley; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 73 Mich App 299; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In rejecting the plaintiff’s equal protection challenge, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff who was injured by an unidentified hit-and-run driver and who did not have his own no-fault insurance policy or covered by one applicable to members of his household, could not recover noneconomic losses (pain and suffering damages) from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Fund established by MCLA 257.1101, et seq. The court based its decision on a 1974 amendment to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Fund Act, which provided that recovery from the fund was not available to accidents occurring "in whole or in part" under the No-Fault Act The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the amendment only barred a double recovery from the fund once the plaintiff had been paid personal protection insurance benefits but still permitted recovery for noneconomic losses. The court held that where the plaintiff recovered PIP benefits under the No-Fault Statute, he could not recover any kind of benefits from the fund. The court cited the clear legislative intent to phase out the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Fund and felt its decision was commensurate with that express policy.
This decision has a lengthy discussion regarding the current equal protection tests utilized in our state. In addition, the decision makes a potentially significant statement in Footnote No. 3 where the court acknowledges that the provision limiting tort recoveries to noneconomic losses as defined is a grant of partial immunity which is not available to persons who have illegally failed to purchase no-fault insurance covering their vehicles. Some recent decisions have intimated that this partial immunity is available to even those persons who have not purchased no-fault insurance.
Substantially identical facts and issues were presented in Moore v Secretary of State, decided the same day as Schigur, except there, the uninsured plaintiff was a bicyclist who was struck by a hit-and-run driver. No one in plaintiff’s household owned an automobile or insurance. The court found no distinction between pedestrians and bicyclists and rejected plaintiff’s argument that insurance coverage for such noneconomic losses was not even available to her as she was living in a household with no car and consequently no ability to purchase uninsured motorist coverage. In essence, the plaintiff was arguing that the statute discriminated against her on the basis of wealth in that she was from a home too poor to buy a car and too poor to buy insurance. The court noted a similarity with O'Donnell v State Farm, 70 Mich App 487 (1976) where it was held that no-fault benefits could not be reduced by governmental benefits. However, the court held that the cases are different because this was not a case involving a reduction of benefits but rather a case where the plaintiff was not entitled to any benefits from either governmental or private source. Under such situations, the state had no duty to provide such benefits.
