Turner v. Farmers Ins. Exch.

• Decision Date: 29 January 2021
• Docket Number: SC: 159661,COA: 339815,COA: 339624,SC: 159660
• Citation: 953 N.W.2d 204 (Mem)
• Parties: Maegan TURNER, BY Walter SAKOWSKI, Conservator, Plaintiff, and Riverview Macomb Home & Attendant Care, LLC, Intervening Plaintiff, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant-Appellee, and Enterprise Leasing Corporation of Detroit, LLC and EAN Holdings, LLC, Defendants/Cross-Defendants-Appellants, and Estate of Jason Puckett, by Gary Duane Rupp, Personal Representative, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, and Patsy Villneff and Tamera Harper, Defendants/Cross-Defendants. Jonte Everson, Plaintiff, v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, and Enterprise Leasing Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

953 N.W.2d 204 (Mem)

Maegan TURNER, BY Walter SAKOWSKI, Conservator, Plaintiff,

and

Riverview Macomb Home & Attendant Care, LLC, Intervening Plaintiff,

v.FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant-Appellee,andEnterprise Leasing Corporation of Detroit, LLC and EAN Holdings, LLC, Defendants/Cross-Defendants-Appellants,

and

Estate of Jason Puckett, by Gary Duane Rupp, Personal Representative, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff,

and

Patsy Villneff and Tamera Harper, Defendants/Cross-Defendants.

Jonte Everson, Plaintiff,

v.Farmers Insurance Exchange, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,andEnterprise Leasing Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 159660

COA: 339624

SC: 159661

COA: 339815

Supreme Court of Michigan.

January 29, 2021

Order

On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted, and the briefs and oral argument of the parties having been considered by the Court, we REVERSE the April 16, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals and, in Docket No. 159660, we REINSTATE the May 5, 2017 order of the Wayne Circuit Court granting summary disposition in favor of Enterprise Leasing Corporation of Detroit, LLC, and EAN Holdings, LLC. In Docket No. 159661, we REINSTATE the August 2, 2017 order of the Washtenaw Circuit Court granting summary disposition in favor of Enterprise Leasing Company.

MCL 500.3101(1) of the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq. , provides that "the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state shall maintain security for payment of [no-fault] benefits ...." And MCL 500.3102(1) provides that "[a] nonresident owner or registrant of a motor vehicle ... not registered in this state shall not operate or permit the motor vehicle ... to be operated in this state for an aggregate of more than 30 days in any calendar year unless he or she continuously maintains security for the payment of [no-fault] benefits ...." Furthermore, at the time relevant to this case, MCL 500.3114 provided for the following insurer priority:

(3) An employee, his or her spouse, or a relative of either domiciled in the same household, who suffers accidental bodily injury while an occupant of a motor vehicle owned or registered by the employer, shall receive personal protection insurance benefits to which the employee is entitled from the insurer of the furnished vehicle.

(4) Except as provided in subsections (1) to (3), a person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident while an occupant of a motor vehicle shall claim personal protection insurance benefits from insurers in the following order of priority:

(a) The insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle occupied.

(b) The insurer of the operator of the vehicle occupied. [ MCL 500.3114, as amended by 2016 PA 347 (emphasis added).]

In Parks v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch. , 426 Mich. 191, 393 N.W.2d 833 (1986), we held that under MCL 500.3114(3), "when an employee is injured in an employer's out-of-state vehicle, which is not required to be registered in this state ..., and when the vehicle is not subject to the security provisions of the no-fault act because it has not been operated in this state for more than thirty days within the calendar year," then any insurer of that vehicle does not have priority for no-fault benefits. Id. at 207, 393 N.W.2d 833. In dictum, we added that "we read the phrase ‘owner or registrant of the vehicle occupied’ within [ MCL 500.3114(4)(a) ] to be part of the more complete requirement as stated in [ MCL 500.3101(1) ]: ‘The owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state ’ (emphasis added)." Id. at 203 n. 3, 393 N.W.2d 833. See Robinson v. City of Lansing, 486 Mich. 1, 16-17, 782 N.W.2d 171 (2010) ("[T]he Legislature is not required to be overly repetitive in its choice of language.... We do not believe that this is required of the Legislature in order that it communicate its intentions.... [U]nless the Legislature indicates otherwise, when it repeatedly uses the same phrase in a statute, that phrase should be given the same meaning throughout the statute.").

Here, as in Parks , it is undisputed that the vehicles at issue owned by the Enterprise appellants which the injured individuals were occupying at the time of the respective accidents were (1) out-of-state vehicles, (2) not required to be registered in this state, and (3) not subject to the security provisions of the no-fault act because they had not been operated in this state for more than 30 days within the calendar year. See MCL 500.3101(1) ; MCL 500.3102(1). Furthermore, we believe that the holding of Parks as to MCL 500.3114(3) applies with equal force to former MCL 500.3114(4)(a) in this context. MCL 500.3114(3), as with former MCL 500.3114(4)(a), does not expressly condition an insurer's priority for no-fault benefits upon the vehicle's being required to be registered in Michigan or otherwise being subject to the security provisions of the no-fault act because it has been operated within the state for more than 30 days within the calendar year. Yet, such a condition is implicit within MCL 500.3114(3) and former MCL 500.3114(4)(a) when the no-fault act is read as a whole. Under MCL 500.3101(1) and MCL 500.3102(1), an owner or registrant of a vehicle must maintain security for the payment of no-fault benefits (i.e., obtain a no-fault insurer) when the vehicle is either required to be registered in this state or operated in this state for more than 30 days within the calendar year. In our judgment, consistent with Parks , the word "insurer" as used in MCL 500.3114(3) and former MCL 500.3114(4)(a) refers to the no-fault insurer contemplated by MCL 500.3101(1) and MCL 500.3102(1). That is, the word "insurer" as used in MCL 500.3114(3) and former MCL 500.3114(4)(a) refers only to a particular insurer that has agreed to provide no-fault insurance to an owner or registrant as required by MCL 500.3101(1) or MCL 500.3102(1). Therefore, where no such insurer exists, there can be no "insurer of the furnished vehicle," see MCL 500.3114(3), or "insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle occupied," see former MCL 500.3114(4)(a).

As applied to this case, because these self-insured Enterprise appellants, see MCL 500.3101d, were not required under either MCL 500.3101(1) or MCL 500.3102(1) to obtain no-fault insurance for the vehicles at issue, the Enterprise appellants could not have constituted the "insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle occupied" under former MCL 500.3114(4)(a). Accordingly, the trial court in each case correctly granted summary disposition in favor of the Enterprise appellants.

Clement, J. (concurring).

I concur in full with the Court's order. I write separately to note that my vote in this case is dictated by this Court's decision in Dye v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. , 504 Mich. 167, 934 N.W.2d 674 (2019). In my view, the fundamental inquiry in this case is determining the nature of the commitment a no-fault insurer makes when it issues a policy of no-fault insurance (or, as here, when an entity commits to self-insuring). The obligation to obtain no-fault insurance is triggered upon becoming "the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state" that is going to be "driven or moved on a highway." MCL 500.3101(1). Is the no-fault insurer's commitment to the insured owner , or is it to the owner's vehicle ? My view is that "nothing in the no-fault act requires a vehicle to be insured," but rather that "a certain person (the vehicle's owner or registrant) [must] maintain security against liability ...." Dye , 504 Mich. at 197, 934 N.W.2d 674 (Clement, J., dissenting). But my view did not prevail; the Court held that MCL 500.3101(1) "refers to the vehicle, not the person." Id. at 192, 934 N.W.2d 674 (opinion of the Court). As a result, a no-fault insurer makes a commitment to cover a particular vehicle , rather than making a commitment to cover a particular vehicle owner and that owner's collection of automobiles.

In its argument to this Court, Enterprise emphasizes that there must be a "predicate" for insurance liability to trigger its placement in the priority hierarchy to pay benefits, and because the vehicle at issue did not need to be insured under MCL 500.3101(1), there is no such predicate here. In my view, this assumes the conclusion. There is no dispute that Enterprise owns other vehicles in Michigan that are subject to MCL 500.3101(1) ; the question is whether those automobiles are a sufficient "predicate" to impose liability on Enterprise. Had the Court adopted my position in Dye , I believe it would follow that Enterprise's other vehicles subject to Michigan's insurance requirement would be a sufficient "predicate." Enterprise (as insurer) would have committed to covering Enterprise (as owner of one or more vehicles subject to Michigan's insurance requirement), and it is in that latter capacity that Enterprise appears in the order of priority under former MCL 500.3114(4)(a). Instead, the Court held in Dye that no-fault insurance is attached to a specific vehicle rather than a specific vehicle owner. I therefore conclude that those other vehicles are not a sufficient "predicate," that the vehicle at issue should be considered uninsured, and thus that the "insurer of the owner" does not exist, meaning that "no personal protection insurance [was] applicable to the injury" and the claim was eligible to be assigned through the assigned claims plan, MCL 500.3172(1). As the insurer to whom the claim was assigned, Farmers Insurance Exchange thus is liable for benefits, and I concur in the Court's order.

Cavanagh, J. (dissenting).

I would affirm the April 16, 2019 decision of the Court of Appeals holding that defendant EAN Holdings, Inc. (EAN), is obligated to pay plaintiffs personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under former MCL 500.3114(4)(a) because it is the insurer of the owner of the vehicles occupied by pl...