Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 325211; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Cavanagh, and Shapiro; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Revocation of Certification [§3163(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that Michigan law — and not Colorado law — applied to plaintiff’s tort claim, which arose from his motorcycle accident with a Colorado driver on a Michigan roadway, and therefore MCL 500.3135 limited defendant’s tort liability.
Plaintiff was injured when his motorcycle collided on a Michigan roadway with a vehicle driven by defendant, a Colorado resident. Plaintiff’s motorcycle was insured by a Florida insurer that did not do business in Michigan. Defendant was insured under a policy issued by an insurer not authorized to do business in Michigan, but which had filed a certificate under MCL 500.3163(2). Plaintiff filed a tort action against defendant, but defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that because his insurer filed the certificate under §3163(2), he was entitled to the rights and protections of Michigan’s No-Fault Act, including MCL 500.3135, which limits tort liability. Plaintiff, however, claimed that Colorado law applied and, therefore, he was entitled to recover damages under a general tort theory. The trial court held that Colorado law applied and denied defendant’s motion for partial summary disposition.
On appeal, the only issue was whether the trial court correctly held that Colorado law controlled. In this regard, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding that Michigan law applied.
In reaching this determination, the Court of Appeals undertook a two-step analysis: 1) whether any foreign state had an interest in having its law applied, and 2) if no state had such an interest, the presumption that Michigan law will apply could not be overcome.
Applying this analysis to the present case, the Court of Appeals concluded:
“[W]e must first discern whether Colorado has an interest in having its law applied in this case. Two facts inform our analysis. First, defendant is a Colorado resident. Second, the insurance policy under which plaintiff seeks to recover was issued in Colorado. On appeal, plaintiff has not identified any interest that Colorado would have in seeing the trial court apply its law. Instead, plaintiff asserts that Michigan has little interest in applying its damage limitations in a case involving two non-residents to Michigan. Plaintiff also asserts that when defendant contracted for insurance, he had an expectation that Colorado law would govern any potential dispute because he resided in Colorado, purchased insurance protecting against damages from economic losses, and paid his insurer to defend negligence actions without special damage immunities. However, the question at issue in this case is whether Colorado has an interest in its law being applied to this case, not whether Michigan has an interest or whether defendant might have expected Colorado law to apply. Upon review, we can discern no significant interest that Colorado would have in exposing one of its residents to greater tort damages.3 Given that no foreign state has an interest in having its law applied in this case, the presumption that Michigan law will apply has not been overcome. … Accordingly, the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for partial summary disposition after applying Colorado law.”
