894 N.W.2d 758
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- The Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) was created by statute to indemnify member no-fault insurers for catastrophic personal-protection losses; membership and assessments are mandatory.
- Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault (CPAN), Brain Injury Assn. of Mich. (BIAMI), and individuals sought FOIA access to MCCA claim records; MCCA refused citing MCL 500.134(4) and (6)(c).
- Trial court held MCCA was a FOIA “public body” and denied wholesale exemption; partial disclosure ordered.
- Court of Appeals (prior panel) assumed MCCA was a public body and held MCL 500.134(4) exempted MCCA records from FOIA.
- Michigan Supreme Court vacated the portion of that decision addressing whether MCL 500.134(4) violates Const 1963, art 4, § 25 and remanded with instructions to decide whether MCCA is a FOIA “public body” under MCL 15.232(d).
- On remand the Court of Appeals held: (1) MCCA is a FOIA “public body” because it was created by state authority under MCL 15.232(d)(iv); (2) MCL 500.134(4)’s insertion of an FOIA exemption into the Insurance Code did not violate art 4, § 25; and (3) MCCA records are exempt under MCL 500.134(4) and (6)(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MCCA is a FOIA "public body" under MCL 15.232(d)(iv) | MCCA is a private association (relying on League) and thus not a FOIA public body | MCCA was created by statute and thus is a public body under the statutory "catchall" (created by state authority) | MCCA is a public body under MCL 15.232(d)(iv) because it was created by state authority |
| Whether MCL 500.134(4) unconstitutionally amended FOIA in violation of Const 1963, art 4, § 25 (reenact-and-publish clause) | The amendment covertly revised FOIA by adding a broad exemption in the Insurance Code without reenacting FOIA §13; thus it violated art 4, § 25 | FOIA §13(1)(d) expressly permits statutory exemptions; the 1988 amendment did not alter or dispense with FOIA and so reenactment/republishing was not required | The Court held MCL 500.134(4) did not violate art 4, § 25 because it operates pursuant to FOIA §13(1)(d) and did not alter or dispense with FOIA provisions |
| Whether MCCA records are exempt from FOIA | FOIA’s exemptions are narrowly construed; blanket exemption in Insurance Code is improper | MCL 500.134(4) and (6)(c) specifically exempt records of an association or facility, including MCCA | Court held MCCA records are exempt under MCL 500.134(4) and (6)(c) |
| Effect of League Gen Ins Co. precedent | League’s characterization of MCCA as a private association under the APA means it is not a FOIA public body | FOIA’s definition of "public body" is broader than the APA’s definition of "state agency," so League does not control FOIA status | League does not control FOIA analysis; FOIA’s definition governs and supports finding MCCA is a public body |
Key Cases Cited
- League Gen Ins Co v Mich Catastrophic Claims Ass'n, 435 Mich 338 (1990) (concluded MCCA was a private association for APA purposes)
- Alan v Wayne Co, 388 Mich 210 (1972) (reenact-and-publish clause requires reenactment when one statute amends another by reference rather than being an "act complete in itself")
- Mok v Detroit Bldg & Savings Ass'n No 4, 30 Mich 511 (1875) (early articulation of the reenact-and-publish protection against amendments by reference)
- People ex rel Drake v Mahaney, 13 Mich 481 (1865) (Cooley explanation of the mischief addressed by the reenact-and-publish requirement)
- Nalbandian v Progressive Mich Ins Co, 267 Mich App 7 (2005) (applied Alan and Mok to hold a vehicle-code amendment impermissibly altered the Insurance Code without reenactment and republication)