I filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Oakland County, Macomb County and Wayne County in this case, urging the Supreme Court to grant Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority’s application or, alternatively, to reverse the Court of Appeals. My brief is attached here: Supreme Court Amicus Curiae Brief for Oakland, Wayne and Macomb Counties stamped copy.
In State Farm v. MMRMA, Supreme Court Case No. 147752, the Court of Appeals held that a police vehicle pursuing a speeding motorcyclist was sufficiently “involved” in a motor vehicle accident between the motorcyclist and another vehicle, even though the police vehicle was nowhere near in proximity to the motorcyclist when he (or his bike) collided with the other vehicle, insured by State Farm. This holding resulted in the apportionment of liability between the no-fault insurance carrier for the county and the insurer of the vehicle. Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority (MMRMA) filed an application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision.
Technically, this case is a pure insurance coverage dispute between two no-fault automobile insurance carriers. Since motorcycles are not covered “vehicles” under Michigan’s No-Fault Act (and motorcyclists are not obligated to carry no-fault coverage), when a motorcyclist suffers injury in a motor vehicle accident, the no-fault act contains a provision “prioritizing” which no-fault insurers are to be “on the risk”. MCL 500.3114(5)(a). Subsection 6 provides if “2 or more” vehicles are involved in the [motor vehicle] accident” the insurers in the same order of priority shall apportion liability among themselves.
There is much debate about this provision and the “scope” of its meaning in terms of which vehicles are, or, are not, “involved in” the motor vehicle accident. Several prior cases from the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals interpreting other provisions of the no-fault act appear to give an “expansive” interpretation of the phrase “involved in”, which results in apportionment of coverage responsibility among multiple insurers.
Governmental entities are affected by this case because they are also responsible to provide the security (insurance) required by the no-fault act for the day-to-day operations involving government owned vehicles. In addition to being contrary to the plain language of the statutory provision, the Court of Appeals decision makes no mention of the effect its ruling has upon government operations and the fiscal consequences of imposing liability under circumstances in which the government is performing an essential function – in this case, the law enforcement function. There are two other applications pending in the Supreme Court requesting the Court to consider this same provision and the “scope” and meaning of the phrase “involved in” when “motor vehicles” are ostensibly involved in an accident in which a motorcyclist suffers injury. I previously wrote about this case, as well as the other two.
See also: Braverman ex rel Smutski v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., et al and DMC v. Progressive, et al.
For more information about this and other similar cases contact Carson J. Tucker, Chair of the Appeals and Legal Research Group at Lacey & Jones, LLP, a Birmingham law firm serving clients since 1912. Mr. Tucker can be reached at (248) 283-0763.
For more information about Lacey & Jones, click on the following practice area company pages on Linked In.
Lacey & Jones, LLP’s Appeals and Legal Research Group
Amicus Curious 