Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #257284; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Wilder, and Zahra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Compulsory Insurance Requirements for Owners or Registrants of Motor Vehicles Required to Be Registered [3101(1)]
General / Miscellaneous [3135]
Obligations of Admitted Insurers to Pay PIP Benefits on Behalf of Nonresidents Injured in Michigan [3163(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Canadian Accidents and Citizens
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant, a Michigan resident insured under the No-Fault Act, holding that an out-of-state plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement for property damages is limited by MCL 500.3135(3)(e).
The plaintiff in this case is an insurance company incorporated in Canada. While driving in Michigan, plaintiff’s insured sustained property damage in a motor vehicle accident with defendant. Plaintiff reimbursed its insured in full and sought reimbursement from defendant, a Michigan resident properly insured under the No Fault Act. When defendant refused to pay, plaintiff sued.
In affirming the trial court’s order granting defendant summary disposition, the Court of Appeals first noted that §3135(3) shields Michigan residents with no-fault insurance from liability to out-of-state residents without no-fault insurance unless the out-of-state resident seeks non-economic damages. Therefore, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that it should be entitled to recover damages because its insured was not required to maintain no-fault insurance. Further, the court found that because plaintiff covered its insured’s property damage claim in its entirety, defendant is not liable for the exception in MCL 500.3135(3) which permits tort liability up to $500 for damages not covered by insurance. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument it is not subject to Michigan’s No-Fault Act because it did not file a certificate of compliance. In rejecting plaintiff’s arguments, the court explained that whether plaintiff filed a certificate of compliance is irrelevant because this case involves the liability of the Michigan resident, not plaintiff’s liability. In this regard, the court stated:
“ . . . MCL 500.3135 will shield a Michigan resident with no-fault insurance coverage from liability to an out-of-state resident without no-fault insurance coverage unless the out-of-state resident seeks noneconomic damages. Thus, plaintiff’s argument that MCL 500.3135(3) does not bar recovery because MCL 500.3101(1) does not require AML to maintain a no-fault policy is incorrect. Whether the out-of-state resident maintains a no-fault insurance policy is only relevant when noneconomic damages are at stake. . . . However, where the out-of-state resident seeks property damages, liability is dependent on whether the Michigan resident maintains the coverage mandated by MCL 500.3101(1). . . . In addition, because plaintiff covered AML’s claim in its entirety, defendant is also not liable for the exception in MCL 500.3135(3)(e) permitting tort liability for motor vehicle damages up to $500 not covered by insurance. Moreover, plaintiff’s argument that it is not subject to the no-fault act because it did not file a certificate of compliance pursuant to MCL 500.3163 is irrelevant because this case deals with defendant’s liability and not plaintiff’s obligation to pay the benefits under the no-fault act. Therefore, because plaintiff is seeking property damages and because defendant complied with MCL 500.3101(1), defendant is not liable to plaintiff in accordance with MCL 500.3135(3). Moreover, defendant is not subject [to] the $500 exception of MCL 500.3135(3)(e) because plaintiff covered AML’s claim in its entirety.”
