Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Numbers 26797 and 28242; Published
Judges Gillis, D. E. Holbrook, and A. C. Miller; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 79 Mich App 660; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
PIP Benefit Deductibles [§3109(3)]
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Bona Fide Factual Uncertainty / Statutory Construction Defense [§3148]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
On rehearing, the Court of Appeals reversed in part and superseded their opinion rendered July 6, 1977, which opinion held that where a motorcyclist is injured in an accident involving an automobile, the motorcyclist is to recover no-fault first-party benefits from the PIP carrier of the automobile involved in the accident regardless if the motorcyclist has an automobile no-fault policy extending such coverage. On rehearing, the Court of Appeals did not specifically refer to its prior discussion of that issue, but in revising its decision, awarded those no-fault benefits to the injured motorcyclist from the no-fault carrier which carried a no-fault policy covering the injured motorcyclist For all practical purposes the decision on rehearing is a repudiation of the Court's previous decision regarding motorcyclist priority.
The Court also made a significant holding regarding §3109(3) concerning the authority of the Insurance Commissioner to approve increases in the statutory $300 personal insurance protection deductible amount. The Court held that the Commissioner has no authority to increase the amount of the deductible. His sole authority is limited to authorizing modifications of the conditions of applicability of the stated limited deductible amount.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the conclusion reached in Shavers v Attorney General, 65 Mich App 355 (1975) to the effect that the provision of the no-fault law preventing tort actions for property damage losses is unconstitutional and an individual who has incurred damage to his motor vehicle as a result of the negligence of another has the right to full tort remedies to recover that damage.
The court also affirmed its previous holding in the July 6, 1977 decision to the effect that attorney fees are not available in first-party actions under §3148(1) where there are "substantial constitutional and statutory construction issues."
