Michigan Supreme Court; Docket #147640, #147641; Published Order
Justices Young, Kelly, McCormack, Viviano, Zahra, and Cavanagh; Justice Markman, dissenting
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Order 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Disqualification for Nonresidents [§3113(c)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [§3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this 6-1 Michigan Supreme Court Order, the court denied leave to appeal in a case involving a claim for no-fault benefits made by an injured motorcycle operator who was not a Michigan resident.
Prior to the issuance of this order, the Court of Appeals released a published Opinion (see, Perkins v Auto Owners, RB # 3352; https://autonofaultlaw.com/digital-library/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2874:perkins-v-auto-owners-ins-co-et-al-coa-pub-7813-rb-3352&catid=3:case-summaries&qh=YToxOntpOjA7czo3OiJwZXJraW5zIjt9) holding that a motorcycle operator was entitled to PIP benefits even though the company that insured the motorcycle had not filed the required state certification. The Court of Appeals ruled the motorcycle operator could recover benefits because his automobile insurer had filed the required certificate. The Court of Appeals also upheld the trial court’s ruling that the insurance company should pay the motorcyclist’s attorney fees, finding it was not convinced the insurer raised a legitimate question of statutory construction.
Justice Stephen J. Markman dissented from the Supreme Court’s order denying leave:
“I respectfully dissent. Defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company argued that because plaintiff, an out-of-state driver, was injured while operating a vehicle that was not insured by an insurer authorized to issue automobile liability insurance in Michigan, he was not entitled to personal protection insurance benefits under Michigan law. MCL 500.3113(c). Despite defendant’s argument ultimately having been rejected by the trial court, defendant bore the obligation to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees only if its argument was ‘unreasonable.’ MCL 500.3148(1). Thus, the dispute here does not pertain to whether defendant’s argument should have prevailed, but only to whether it was ‘unreasonable.’ In my judgment, it was not in the slightest.”
