Advisory Opinion Re Constitutionality of 1972 PA 294

1973] 1972 PA re CONSTITUTIONALITYOF

ADVISORYOPINION Opinion of the Court Opinion Supreme Advisory — Court —Precedent. 1. Courts — advisory opinion Michi- of the An does not constitute a decision binding gan Supreme precedentially in the Court and hearing on as a decision of that Court after a same sense merits. Advisory Opinion Supreme Court. 2. Constitutional Law — — opin- provision authorizing advisory Michigan constitutional upon Supreme intended to encroach ions Court was not right people adjudicative their to an determination (Const 3, 1963, particularized unconstitutionality art claims of §8).

3. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance —Ti- Law. tle of Act —Constitutional more than insurance act does not embrace No-fault automobile (Const expressed object object in the title one one 294). 1963, 4, 24; 1972 PA § Surety Busi- 4. Code —Insurance Business — Insurance —Insurance ness. regu- did and does Code of 1956 intended The Insurance [1, 2, 27-30, [3-85] [46] [47, 48, 55, ^[39] [69, [13] [17, [4, [6-8, [38, [18, [9— ^[50] 5, 12, 44] 45, 50 Am 31, 567, 576. 50 Am 16 Am Jur 25] 42] See 7 Am Jur 21, Am 77] 78, 82, 50 Am 50 Am 50 Am 24] Jur, Jur, 16 Am Jur Jur, Am 33-35, 58, 50 Am 83] Jur, Jur, 2d, References Jur, Jur Statutes 569. Statutes §§ Statutes § 50 Am Constitutional 63, 73, 76, 80, Statutes Statutes § 2d, Jur, Statutes §§ 2d, 61] 2d, Insurance Automobile Statutes §§ Jur, Constitutional 16 Am Jur 445 et 446, for Points § 177. Statutes §§ 72, 447. seq. Law §§ §§ 223. Insurance § 259-265. 51-89. 2d, 84] Law 5.§ Constitutional Law § 219, 50 Am 204-216. Headnotes 239. 7.5 Jur, (Supp). Statutes §§ 111. 389 Mich 441 generally broadly late insurance-surety business of (MCLA seq.). 500.100 et 5. Insurance —Insurance Code —Title of Act —Constitutional Law. possible presumptions All should be afforded to find constitution- ality and the amended title of the Insurance Code of 1956 reasonably,

should narrowly be construed not and with unnec- (1972 294). technicality essary PA One-Object 6. Statutes —Constitutional Law — Limitation —No- tice. may germane An act all object include may matters to its and it provisions to, directly include all those carry which relate out implement principal object; and the purpose of the one- object Michigan limitation of the Constitution is to insure that legislators public proper both the legisla- have notice of prevent (Const subterfuge 1963, tive content and deceit and 24). 4, art § One-Object 7. Statutes —Constitutional Limitation —No- Law — tice. goal one-object Michigan The limitation of the Constitution notice, (Const 24). legislation 1963, 4, of not restriction art § 8. Statutes. Legislation, primary object, a if it has invalid because it attaining primary object. embraces more than one means of its 9. Constitutional Law —Construction. given determining meaning The first consideration of language simply constitutional should to read it. be 10. Constitutional of Act. Law —Statutes—Amendments—Title language Michigan of section of an article of Constitu- clear; says quite succinctly straightforwardly it tion is that enactment) revised, (meaning statutory no law shall be altered only; or amended reference to its title the constitutional done, i.e., language proceeds to shall be then state how it that question of the act in shall be amended the section or sections (Const 1963, 4, republishing length by reenacting art §25). 11. Act— Law —Statutes—Amendments—Title Constitutional Phrases. Law —Act—Words act, used in a section of an section of an "Law” means act or provides part article of Constitution revised,

that law shall be "[n]o altered or amended reference (Const 25). only” to its title art 12. Constitutional Law —Construction—Precedent. determining meaning A second consideration in constitu- language analysis precedent; pursuing prece- tional is the dent, proximate those cases decided at a time to the ratification important they of the constitution are reflect the better meaning language it the constitution at the time was written. Courts—Legislature—Discretion. 13. Constitutional Law — powers Constitutional division of mandates the courts not legislative by fabricating interfere with action standards not constitutionally required; Legislature must allowed suffi- point, provided cient discretion at this that such discretion is (Const exercised within constitutional limitations §2). Automobile Insurance— Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Notice —Constitutional Law. language statute, providing and content of a for no-fault insurance, entirely give automobile is sufficient to the notice to Legislature public being changed and the of what is required by the content thereof as a section of an article of the (Const 294). Michigan 4, 25; Constitution art 1972 PA §

15. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Amendments —Title of Act —Constitutional Law. Statute, providing insurance, for no-fault automobile does not provision violate standards set forth in the that constitutional revised, by law shall be altered or "[n]o amended reference to only” its title and that section or sections of the act "[t]he published altered or amended shall be re-enacted and at revise, length”; prohibited it does not alter or amend in such (Const 294). 4, 25; fashion PA art 1972 § 16. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Constitutional Law. Act, insurance, providing for no-fault automobile details all that required system for institution of a "no-fault” of motor insurance; complete itself; vehicle it is an act within it falls squarely complete within the rule that an act in itself is not designed by within the mischief to be remedied a constitutional revised, provision law shall be altered or amended "[n]o only” to reference its title section or "[t]he sections of published the act altered or amended shall be re-enacted and at Mich

length” prohibited by cannot be held to be it without (Const 294). violating plain 4, 25; intent art PA Supreme 17. Constitutional Law — Court. Michigan Supreme apply The task of the Court is to the constitu- adopted by people tion as and it cannot and should not attempt anticipate imagined and resolve all difficulties. op 18. Statutes —Title Act —Amendments—Constitutional Law. providing Section of an article of the Constitution "[n]o revised, law shall be altered or to its amended reference only” title and that section or sections of the act altered "[t]he published length” shall amended be re-enacted and preventing respect directed at undesirable conduct with particular act; amendment of a it does not seek to correct amendment, tangential or alteration which the revision effects (Const 1963, directly may on those statutes not have affected 4, §25).. 19. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Amendments. striking attempt byor

There is no to alter or amend reference reproduction out or insertiоn of words without of the statute its amended form the no-fault automobile insurance 294). (1972 PA Automobile Insurance— 20. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault op Code —Title Act. Amendments —Insurance Insurance” amendment modifies the title The so-called "No-Fault Code; complete chapter the Insurance it is a of and adds a publishes in one act for does not confuse or mislead but act and (MCLA purports 500.100 et it to do all the world to see what 294). seq.; PA Construction—Supreme Court. Law — Constitutional given practical language must be reasonable Constitutional try Michigan Supreme interpretations must Court and the wording original expand of its context out to extend and imagined respond meaning to or even real in order to and mischief. Insurance- Automobile

22. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault op Act. Code —Amendments—Title Insurance purport its terms act does automobile insurance No-fault revise, any other than of an act act or section or amend to alter Code; title of the Insurance it does amend the Insurance PA body of Code and it sets forth in full the to the amendments (MCLA 294). seq.; the Code 500.100 et 1972 PA 23. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance- Title of Law —Notice. Act —Amendments—Constitutional Michigan requirement notice of a section of an article of the met, has been been Constitution the enactment have standards insurance, act, providing met and the for no-fault automobile constitutionality complete itself and within meets the test of applied by Michigan of an a section article of the Constitution provides revised, law or amended shall be altered "[n]o only” to its title or sections reference and section "[t]he published of the act altered or amended shall be and re-enacted 294.). (Const 1963, length” 4, 25; 1972 PA Impairment Body 24. Words of Function- Phrases —Serious Disfigurement. Serious Permanent impairment "permanent body Phrases "serious of function” and and, disfigurement” legal interpretation capable are of serious indeed, juries judges sitting juries frequently have without comparable bearing upon interpret phrases various do facets the law. Construction—Legislative 25. Statutes — Intent. Court, statute, give construing Supreme must when language legislative in the intent and read effect (MCLA accomplished light general purpose sought to be 8.3). 26. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Body Impairment Function Words Phrases —Serious Disfigurement of Fact. —Torts—Trier Serious —Permanent "permanent impairment body function” and Phrases "serious no-fault disfigurement” of the as used in a section serious precise that which not less than insurance are automobile determining express adopted standards for other has been province trier of fact they liability; are within the tort 500.3135). (MCLA legal interpretation and are sufficient Opinion

Concurring Kavanagh Levin, JJ T. G. Opinion— Advisory Supreme

27. Constitutional Court — Law — Legislature—Governor. Statutes — opinions advisory the Su- Michigan’s restricts Constitution concerning "law”, important questions of preme Court 389 Mich 441 "constitutionality’S legislation, "upon of solemn occasions” requested by Legislature when either house of the or the Governor, legislation after the has been enacted into law (Const 8). but before the effective date Advisory Opinion Supreme 28. Courts — — of Questions Court — Fact —Statutes—Construction. Court, Michigan Supreme advisory the context of an opinion, fact, may questions not questions examine of concerning interpretation may the or of construction a statute except questions not be considered as those affect a constitu- question. tional Advisory Opinion 29. Courts — —Constitutional Law —Insurance— Automobiles —No-Fault Automobile Proc- Insurance —Due Equal Protection —Evidence—Factual Issues. ess — Michigan Supreme proceed prudently Court could not on a re- quest advisory opinion constitutionality for an on the of no- the assumption fault act on automobile insurance specific equal protec- constitutional issues adumbrated process questions authoritatively tion and due could an- hearing any any findings swered without evidence and without 294). (1972 on factual issues PA Advisory Opinion Supreme 30. Courts — — Court —Precedent— Stare Law. Decisis —Governor—Senate—Constitutional advisory opinion adjudicative An is not an decision of the Michi- Supreme gan binding Court and is not in the same a sense as hearing Court decision of the after a on the merits a constitutes precedent decisis; advisory opinions under the doctrine stare public, profession, are read Governor expression Michigan Senate as a definitive the views Supreme any expression carefully Court and such must be seemingly as circumscribed so not to inhibit a different deter- contending parties mination in a case an where the have had facts, opportunity present adjudicative relevant as well constitutional. 31. Courts —Statutes—Constitutional Law. court, constitutional,

A when it holds an act to be does no more ought deny particular unconstitutionality; than claim it not, by claims, premature expressions generalized on abstract appear persons differently advancing to foreclose from situated unconstitutionality. more concrete claims of Supreme 32. Courts — Court —Statutes—Classification—Insur- ance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance. properly Supreme within the function It is Court’s up, speculatively, particularized hypothesize claims to set might persons to be who claim disadvan- strawmen classes provi- ways by taged the various classifications and in various 294). (1972 PA automobile insurance of the no-fault sions Advisory Opinion Supreme 33. Constitutional Law — Court— — Michigan Lawyers Trial Association —State Bar. constitutionally Michigan Supreme not authorized Court is The Michigan Lawyers advisory opinions to the Trial to furnish State Bar. Association or a committee Opinion Supreme Advisory Equal 34. Courts — — Protec- Court — tion —Due Process —Constitutional Law —Insurance—Auto- Automobile mobiles —No-Fault Insurance —Governor—Sen- ate-Findings Fact. of equal Michigan Supreme decline to answer the The Court should process questions posed protection the Governor due and advisory opinion requests on the the in their for an Senate constitutionality insurance act be- of the no-fault automobile they particularized claims of unconsti- cause to delineate failed tutionality generally specific persons of of classes on behalf necessary testimony, persons, might it to hear because be findings fact make of in order consider other evidence and particularized authoritatively merits the of some determine expression any unconstitutionality, of sus- claims and because act, taining carefully constitutionality the unless circum- of scribed, prejudice adjudication subsequent might of a a fair presented for the first time after an eviden- meritorious claim (1972 294). tiary hearing PA Advisory Opinion Governor—Senate—Supreme 35. Courts — — Court —Constitutional Law —Fact Finding. Supreme responds on Questions Court to which satisfy request for an Senate criteria of the Governor and sufficiently particularized advisory opinion they in that advance adjudicative finding unconstitutionality, is not fact claims scope opinion required should not of the Court’s prejudice adjudica- misinterpretation subject and should

tion of future actual cases. 36. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Insurance Code. liability act—enacted a new and no-fault motor vehicle

The changes present separate chapter the Insurance Code— 389 Mich 441 system compensating victims of automobile accidents requiring "security” an owner of a motor vehicle to maintain payment for the of no-fault and other benefits himself and others, by modifying liability negligent driving for of a (1972 294). motor vehicle PA 37. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Disfigurement. Torts —Common Law —Death—Serious liability

The no-fault automobile insurance act modifies tort eliminating negligent driving the common-law an injuries insured automobile in those cases where the caused death, impairment do not body result either in serious function, permanent disfigurement; however, or in serious even injuries serious, if the negligent are not so tortfeasor injured person’s damages remains if liable for allowable expenses, daily, work loss and survivor’s loss exceed the monthly three-year (1972 limitations contained the act 294). PA Object. 38. Statutes — "object” general purpose of a statute is the or aim of the enactment. Legislature.

39. Statutes —Codification—Constitutional Law — impossible CodMcation of multifarious enactments would be if the obliges Legislature object constitution the to deüne the of a terms; especially in codification narrow in the of case a codifica- tion, Legislature object the is free to conceive of the of its express in a endeavors terms of common denominator and to conception in umbrella words. 40. Automobile Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Insurance— Compulsory Object Insurance Code — Insurance — of Act. object The of the no-fault automobile insurance act is reform of present system compensating persons injured by of automo- biles; generally objеct stated of the Insurance Code is the "relating surety codiñcation of the to the laws insurance and business”; compulsory insurance feature of the no-fault object automobile insurance act is within the of of code laws (MCLA relating seq.; to the insurance business 500.100 et 294). PA Automobile Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Insurance— Purpose. widely purpose

The declared of the no-fault automobile insurance act is to in- reduce the cost of automobile insurance and to PA 294 paid proportion premium ultimately

crease dollar (1972PA 294). injured persons Liability 42. Insurance — Insurance —Statutes. designed Legislation of insur- increase the effectiveness cost redefining scope person’s liability is of ance the insured to, and, therefore, relating germane object an act within to the insurance business.

43. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Insurance- Automobile Code —Statutes. Insurance Redefining object a codification the risk insured within the business; relating automobile laws to the insurance the no-fault object Code insurance act within the Insurance 294). (MCLA seq.; originally et PA enacted 500.100 Object—Alter—Amend. 44. Words and Phrases — word, so, too, protean "object” are the words the word is a Just as "alter” and "amend”. 45. Statutes —Amendments. statutory solely its change in terms of law can be viewed

A remote, indirect, consequences its or even or in terms of direct consequences as well. 46. Action —Procedure. may maintaining change procedure alter for an action in the A rights enforceability laws. under other established by Implication Repeals 47. Statutes — —Reenactment—Publica- tion. repeal by constitutionally alter or amend or act can A later express "implication” act without refer- the effect of an earlier act, publication length. the earlier reenactment ence to In- 48. Statutes —Insurance—Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Wrongful Liability Act — Law —Civil surance —Common Act. Death wrought by change the no-fault principal law in former of the common-law is the modification automobile insurance automobile; driving negligence conse- an the change under quence, in the recoveries allowable is there a (MCLA 257.401, wrongful liability death act the civil act and 294). 600.2922;1972PA 49. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Liability Wrongful Act. Death Act — Civil change fea- not act does insurance The no-fault automobile 389 Mich 441 tures liability wrongful civil earlier death acts which unique, makes them liability vicarious in the one case actionability wrongful of death and survival of actions in (MCLA257.401, 600.2921, 294). 600.2922; other 1972PA 50. Constitutional Law —Statutes—Reenactment—Publication— Common Law —Amendments. requiring constitutional limitation publica- reenactment and length legislative tion at restricts alteration or amendment of law, statutory law; earlier legislative not common modiñca- tion of the common properly law can be enacted without publication length reenactment and provisions at of earlier implement, acts which purport state, assimilate or but do not (Const 1963, 4, §25). the common law art

51. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Uninsured Motor Vehicle.

Under the longer no-fault automobile insurance it act will no be operate required lawful to an uninsured motor if it vehicle registered be operated in the State or if in this aggregate state days for an any more than 30 calendar (1972PA 294). year 52. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. Presumably, Legislature liability the mtent of the is that the pay damages- the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund to caused uninsured motor vehicles will be taken over assigned provided facility claims for in the automobile no-fault amended; precise interplay insurance act as of the earlier stated; claims accident and the new no-fault acts public, (1972 Bench and Bar must fathom this for themselves 345). PA 53. Constitutional Law —Reenactment—Publication—Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance —Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act. extent, all,

To the if there has been a violation of the constitu- publication requirement tional reenactment and because of the spell precise interplay failure to out the between the earlier accident claims act and the no-fault automobile insurance act remedy unconstitutionality; need not a declaration of remedy simply another to declare that the would be (Const 1963, 4, §25; the accident claims fund continues 294). 257.1101; MCLA 1972PA 54. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Limitation of Actions requires,

The no-fault automobile insurance act with certain exceptions, commencement of an no-fault action recover year accident; insurance beneSts within one there after the exception been general have countless cases where a like to the (MCLA 500.2832; statute limitations has been enforced 294). PA by Implication 55. Statutes —Amendment Law— —Constitutional Reenactment —Publication. Generally, changes by when a new act earlier acts so-called implication, identify publish act new fails to or or reenact length thus, acts; though at affected sections of earlier a even spell changes new act does not out the in earlier acts so that a

reader of new readily act of an affected act will be aware changes, it does not follow that the constitutional limita- requiring publication length tion reenactment and at has been (Const 1963, 4, §25). violated art 56. Constitutional Law —Statutes—Reenactment—Publication. meaning requirmg the constitutional limitation reenact- publication length applied particular ment and at to a case becomes, analysis, judgment, subject in the last a matter of not by talisman; question to resolution a becomes whether challenged designed act is "within the mischief remedied” (Const 1963) 4, §25). art 57. Insurance —Automobiles—^-No-Fault Automobile Insurance- Constitutional Law —Statutes—Reenactment—Publica-

tion. The no-fault automobile insurance falls on the constitutional Michigan construing of an obscure line side between two cases requiring publi- the cоnstitutional limitation reenactment and (Const length of acts new act art affected cation 294). §25; 1972PA

Separate Opinion J., Williams, T.M. C. Kavanagh, Advisory Opinion Supreme 58. Courts — — Court —Governor—Sen- ate —Constitutional Law. Questions arguments oral raised briefs and which are not scope opinions requested advisory within the Mich 441 may properly Governor and be considered the^Senate 8). (Const Supreme Court Legislature—Supreme Court —Statutes Constitutional Law — Law. —Torts—Common Legislature power has a under section of an article of the originate Michigan statutory Constitution to or abolish forms of power, liability tort as well concurrent with the inherent power express Michigan Supreme constitutional of (Const 1963, change common-law tort art Court §7). Insurance— 60. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile op One-Object Limitation. Title Act —Constitutional Law — than insurance act not embrace more No-fault automobile does Michigan object one in violation of a section of an article of providing "fnjo law shall embrace more than one Constitution object, expressed of the shall be in its title” because Legis- protecting presumption constitutionality an act of the of lature, provision particularly involved where the constitutional phrases remedy severability "serious of the and the admits disfig- impairment body "permanent function" and serious are "sufScient as used a section that act urement” (Const 1963, 4, §24; S00.3135; legal interpretation” art MCLA 294). 1972 PA Opinion Advisory Law-Statutes— —Constitutional Courts — op Title Act —Amendments—Reenactment—Publication— Automobile Insurance. Automobiles —Insurance—No-Fault Supreme Michigan by Court advisory opinion a Justice of the An required finding procedures of an article section that revised, Michigan be that law shall ”[n]o Constitution of the only” and that to its title reference altered or amended be "[tjhe amended shall of the act altered or or section sections complied length” published with in were not at re-enacted and act, it is insurance automobile of the no-fault the enactment unconstitutional; declaring the act that act not a decision require- stand; procedural those and continues invalidated wishes, Legislature remedied, so without if the ments can be (Const 1963, §26; again 1972PA enacting art act the no-fault 294). Automobile Insurance— 62. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Law. Amendments —Constitutional plainly is to "mod- meant act insurance automobile The no-fault modify" term "to uses the existing ify” that law and when 1973] pursuant it plainly what does thereto is what a section Michigan talking an article it when Constitution is about “revised, (Const 1963, 4, §25; refers to altered or amended” art 294). 1972PA

63. Constitutional Law —Statutes—Amendments—Reenactment —Publication. says

A Michigan plainly section an article of the Constitution Legislature "modify”, cannot or as stated in that Constitu- tion, "revise, existing alter or amend” law without reenactment (Const 1963, republication 4, §25) 64. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Constitutional Law —Statutes—Title of Act —Amendments

—Reenactment—Publication. plainly The no-fault autоmobile insurance act not enacted was pursuant properly procedures required by to the an a section of "fnjo article of the Constitution law shall revised, only” or altered amended reference its title "[tjhe section or sections of the act altered amended published length”, Legisla- shall be re-enacted and since the republish ture did not reenact and the sections or acts the no- purports pur- fault act to amend act and since the no-fault (Const "revise, ported existing to alter or amend” art law 294). 4, §25; 1972PA Automobile 65. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Insurance— Liability— Liability Title of Act —Civil Act —Owners Wrongful Death Act —Amendments—Constitutional Law. existing The no-fault act be- automobile insurance modiñes law stating purpose of cause the title that act its includes "to modify liability arising accidents”; tort out of certain a section provides notwithstanding any provision of the act that other law, liability arising ownership, tort from or the maintenance except use within this state a motor vehicle is abolished toas speciñed instances; modify that section does a section of the liability providing that of a civil act the owner motor vehicle negligent operation injury be liable for shall occasioned equally purports modify of such vehicle and to motor wrongful except by superseding it where death is death act caused, intentionally noneconomic losses are involved in where damages survivor’s exceed those a death and where a allowed "modify” interchangeable is under the act because no-fault phrase modify” "to used with "alter” and "amend” phrase is same as no-fault act the title to the "revised, in a section of or an article of the altered amended” Mich 441 (Const 1963, 257.401, 4, §25; Constitution MCLA 294). 500.3135, 600.2922;1972 PA 66. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Liability Statutes —Amendments—Owners Law— —Common Negligence Entrustment. purports

A section of the no-fault to automobile insurance act law; modify, statutory alter amend both common law and owner, liability, qua vicarious owners derived from is not purely statutory Michigan, governed law and common is act”; liability liability the so-called "owners owner for of an "negligent entrustment” is common is not law derived but merely upon on based his status as owner his but rather entrusting; conduct in the that section of the no-fault automo- purport "modify” only insurance act does not common- bile liability arising also law tort from or use” but "maintenance "ownership” liability arising purely to that refers tort from and, arising purely liability from since there no common-law ownership, liability it civil can be the owners in the liability being that act is referred to because this later only "provision giving liability mere of law" rise tort (MCLA 500.3135). 257.401, ownership Liability Operators Liability Negli- 67. Automobiles —Owners — — Duty gence Statutes—Negligence Per Law — — Se —Common of Care. liability may It not be said that the statute is conditioned owners exclusively upon operator; only the common-law of the negligence per so that constitutes se the violation statutes causation, only question jury for thе is whether there was negligence; duty there the common-law of due not whether was negli- independent statutory duties and the rule of care is 257.401). (MCLA gence per se Automobile Insurance— 68. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Liability Repeal Wrongful Act Death Act —Civil Acts — —Constitutional Law —Reenactment—Publication. act does not meet the test no-fault insurance automobile supersedes repeals other in relation thereto all acts the act modify tort the title act states it is because repeal liability supersede there is no and rather than to preserve parts attempts repealer; general to certain act necessarily prior thereof refer sections acts actions because damages liability wrongful acts in case of and civil to the death injured person suffered has where for noneconomic loss complete therefore, death; not fall within the "act act does exception in under itself’ of the Michi- section of an article gan requiring republication Constitution reenactment (Const 4, §25; 500.3135, 600.2922; 257.401, art MCLA 294). 1972PA Repeal. 69. Statutes — though repugnant, yet Even acts are two not if later covers ñrst, subject showing provisions the whole and contains substitute, operate repeal. that it was a it will as a 70. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Constitutional Law —Reenactment—Publication. The no-fault automobile act insurance does not meet test of having rely single provision on a of the former law specifically because a section thereof indicates that actions and remedies thereunder are not law all inclusive but other includ- ing therefore, on; statutes must relied does not fall the act complete exception within the "act itself’ a section of under Michigan requiring an article of the Constitution reenactment 294). (Const republication §25; art 1972PA 71. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Liability Civil Act —Constitutional Law —Reenactment— Publication —Torts. The no-fault automobile act insurance inserts certain words therefore, act; liability section modiñcation of a of the civil complete exception act does not within fall the "act in itself’ under a of an section article Constitution requiring republication reenactment and because the no-fault purports liability act as far as tort is concerned to insert (Const words, phrase certain toor substitute one for another 294) 4, §25; 257.401; MCLA 1972PA Repeal—Amendments. 72. Statutes — complete revise, actAn in itself does not assume terms to alter repeals or amend but all inconsistent acts. by Implication. 73. Statutes —Amendment by implication” way The words "amendment no constitute a precise test but be viewed in semantical must the context in they are used. 74. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Liability Wrongful Repeal by Impli- Civil Death Act — Act — Incorporation cation — Reference. public The no-fault automobile insurance leaves it to the try figure with out where it Sts in the civil 389 Mich wrongful by inserting removing death acts and words here and thеre; therefore, repeal by permissible the no-fault act is not a (MCLA implication incorporation by 257.401, and reference 294). 600.2922; PA 75. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance- Law. Statutes —Amendments—Constitutional any Total omission of reference to the law to be amended in the successfully no-fault automobile insurance act did not avoid requirements Michigan of a section of an article of the Consti- providing revised, tution that law shall '[n]o altered or only” '[tjhe amended reference to its title and that section or sections of the act altered or amended shall be re-enacted published length”, because, assuming and at there were no amended, reference to the law to be if a minimal reference only” insufficient, such as to "title no reference all is at even finding less that sufficient there is some reference in the amended, no-fault act to the law to be such reference is (Const 294). inadequate §25; art 1972PA 76. Constitutional of Act— Law —Statutes—Amendments—Title Notice —Publication—Reenactment. purpose Michigan of a section of an article of the Constitu- providing revised, tion that law shall be altered or "[n]o only” "[tjhe amended reference to its title and that section or sections of the act altered or amended shall be re-enacted published length” give certainty; at is to notice and obvi- ously, enough if reference to the title is not for notice and certainty, giving enough; no reference at all is not a fortiori publication provides notice and reenactment of the section (Const 1963, length provides certainty altered or amended at 4, §25). art Supreme Tl. Constitutional Law — Court. purposes Michigan Supreme people Court enforces the in- tended in their constitution. 78. Constitutional Law —Statutes—Title Act —Amendments— Reenactment —Publication. providing Constitution

A section an article revised, "fnjo altered or amended reference law shall be "[tjhe only” section or sections of to its title and that the act published shall be re-enacted at altered amended prior length” there is amendment of law intends that where enough, only” there must be reenact- "reference to title length legislators publication so that and the ment and . PA 294

public alike can read for language themselves the of the law as having pick amended without a word £11in from one act and another; with a word from omission of all to the act reference to be amended and publish failure to reenact violates provision (Const 1963, 4, §25). of the Constitution 79. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Liability Owners —Amendments—Torts. There is an "by amendment reference” to the owners statute in the no-fault automobile insurance act because a speci£c section thereof makes reference to abolition of tort liability arising purely "ownership” from one and there is governing (MCLA liability purely statute "ownership” from 500.3135). 257.401, by Repeal—Amendments—Amendment Implication. 80. Statutes — act, subsequent "complete A if in itself’ and which conHicts with act, prior repeal it, although a can but not amend it is some- by implication”. times called an "amendment by by Implication Repeals Implication 81. Statutes —Amendment — Repeal. —Partial by implication” A permissible, so-called "amendment if a subsequent repeals portion prior implication by act of a incorporates prior any all the rest of the act without change amendment, although reality repeal part. it is a op 82. Statutes —Revision—Alteration—Amendments—Title Act —Reenactment—Publication—Constitutional Law. act, subsequent prior A if it adds to a act but is harmonious and prior act, "revision, not inconsistent with the is not a alteration meaning or amendment” within the of a section of an article of Michigan providing Constitution that law shall be "[n]o revised, by only” altered or amended reference to its title "[tjhe that section or sections of the act altered or amended (Const 1963, published length” 4, shall be re-enacted and at art §25). op 83. Statutes —Title Act —Amendments—Reenactment—Publi- cation —Constitutional Law.

Omission of the title of an act to reference to be amended in the amendatory necessity act does not avoid the of reenactment publication required an under a section of article of the Michigan "[njo revised, providing Constitution that law shall be only” to its title altered or amended reference and that "ftjhe of the act altered or amended section or sections shall be ” (Const 25). 1963, published length reenacted and at art 389 Mich 441 84. Statutes —Amendments—Reenactment—Publication—Consti-

tutional Law. Reference of some sort to the act to be amended and failure to publish reenact and violates a section of an article of the providing "[njo revised, Constitution that law shall be altered or amended only” reference to its title and that '[tjhe section or sections of the act altered or amended shall be (Const published length" §25).

re-enacted and at art 85. Insurance —Automobiles—No-Fault Automobile Insurance— Torts —Amendments—Reenactment—Publication—Consti- tutional Law. act, by The no-fault automobile insurance reason of a section providing notwithstanding any provision thereof other law, liability arising ownership, tort from the maintenance or except use within this state of a motor vehicle is abolished as to speciñed instances, violates a section of an article the Michi- gan providing '[njo revised, Constitution law shall be only” altered or amended reference to its title and that "[tjhe section or sections of the act altered or amended shall be (Const published length" 4, §25;

re-enacted and 294). 500.3135; MCLA 1972PA See headnotes 27-35.

Request by the Governor and the Senate for opinion advisory as to constitutionality of 1972 PA (No. 294. Submitted March 1973. 16 March 54,503.) Term Docket No. Statute declared constitutional June

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Harry Iwasko, Jr., Vasiloff, G. and Karl S. Assistants (L. Lodge, Harvey counsel), Attorney General supporting constitutionality. Joseph General, Kelley, Attorney

Frank J. Zimmer, B. J. Bilitzke and Paul Assistants Attor- General, negative on side. ney Amicus Curiae: Company аnd Michi-

League General Insurance Opinion of the Court (Tom Cohn, gan Keller, Credit Union Downs and Svenson); Downs & American Insurance Associa- (Honigman, Miller, tion [by Schwartz & Cohn Robinson]); K James United Automobile Workers Dozier). (Daniel Action —Community Program P. Michigan Trial M. Lawyers (Harry Association Philo and Sheldon L. Mogill, Miller M. [Kenneth counsel]). E.

Robert Keeton. Reamon). (William State Bar of Michigan G. Coleman, M. S.

FACTS:

On October 1972 the Michigan Legislature enacted PA 294 "to Amend the Title of Act No. 218 of the Public Acts of 1956” and to add Chapter 31 to the Insurance Code of 1956. phrases Two were deleted from the title and important two added, ones were shown as follows: revise, ACT to classify "AN consolidate and the laws relating to the insurance and of the state surety tion of domestic insurance and associations and the admission of companies powers on which ing, powers; and to business; regúlate incorporation or forma- companies

surety foreign and alien associations; provide rights, their prescribe the and immunities and to conditions companies organized, and associations exist- may this act exercise their or authorized under powers provide rights, and immunities persons, prescribe on which other the conditions firms, engaged in an in- corporations and associations powers; surety may exercise their surance or business privilege imposition a provide of fee on to for the associations, companies and and the domestic insurance state accident imposition fund; provide for the of a to foreign companies and alien tax on the business of Mich 441 Opinion of the Court associations; imposition to for the of a tax provide on surplus agents; line the business MODIFY TO TORT LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF CERTAIN ACCIDENTS: REQUIRE SECURITY TO FOR LOSSES ARISING ACCIDENTS; CERTAIN provide OUT OF for the departmental ance and supervision regulation of the insur- surety state; business within this and to and to act, of this the violation provide penalties for acts;” repeal certain of the provisions Chapter The new 31 which are at 3135(1), forth in issue are set which reads § part: person subject

"A remains to tort for non- ownership, his maintenance or economic loss caused use of a motor vehicle suffered injured person if has death, impairment body function or serious disfigurement.” permanent serious 1, become effective on October provisions The new Message Executive dated November By an Milliken, acting pursu- G. 1972 Governor William 3, 8, requested of the Const of ant to art respect to the opinion with advisory Court an this 294, submitting four 1972 PA constitutionality questions. of November Senate Resolution 336

By with advisory opinion an requested the Senate also questions. act, submitting three this respect Court, preliminary an order of Pursuant 16,1973. January held on hearing was 2, 1973, granted Court this February order of By the Senate with the Governor requests requested questions1 of three to a total respect advisory opinions provision is as as to constitutional follows: request governor may legislature "Either house of upon questions important of law opinion supreme on court

1973] 1972 461 PA 294 Opinion op the Court Attornеy General to file briefs on the affirma- negative question tive and sides of in- each constitutionality legislation solemn occasions as to the it has after 3, 1963, but been enacted into before law the effective date.” Const art §8. important emphasize opinion It is advisory the fact that an does precedentially not constitute a decision of the Court and is not binding hearing in the same sense as a decision of a the Court after Opinion on the The Court Advisory merits. said in the re Constitu- 1970, 100, tionality (1970), legislation of PA No 384 82Mich that presumption constitutionality” "clothed with the must be sustained if within constitutional it limits. The Court indicated that upon give plain "incumbent our Court to effect to the intent and clear Legislature irrespective possible any of the view of Justice impolitic.” Justices such intent is unwise or opinions impact There have been no in rendered this state as to the import advisory opinion. concurring opinion and in Mich 55 of an Justice Black’s 1966, 261, Advisory Opinion Constitutionality re of PA 379 No (1967) question. process did address the He felt the to be "nonprecedential nonadjudicatory”. p He said at 67: legal respected forget, judicial "As some minds seem to this is not a sense, though present opinion signed by proceeding at all. In no even an five release, come to such an or more Justices should opinion kind, would determination, judicial precedent any be or become a or a judgment binding against anyone, or a on or enforceable membership significantly Court and its included. Mr. Justice Fel- Co., lows, writing Anway Rapids Railway for the Court in v Grand 592, 603, [1920], straight typically in his 211 Mich 604 set all this way: direct " 'We are mindful of the fact that in seven the States of the (Colorado, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Hampshire, Union New Dakota) by Rhode Island and South the the constitutions of those States legislative departments may request opinions or executive of the Supreme important questions; Court on but we are likewise mindful opinions regarded expressing justices that such are as the views of the judicial question by court; and such executive,-or determination of the opinions regarded binding upon legislature, are not as itself; indeed, the court the court does not act as a court rendering opinions in other Mass such but as the constitutional advisers of the Justices, departments government. Opinion of the 126 557, Cleveland, 564, [1878]; [1870]; 566 State v 58 Me 573 Green ” Mass) (94 Commonwealth, (Emphasis by v Allen [1866].’ Court.) Supreme recently has Court of Rhode Island summarized the opinion: legal principles advisory an involved the officeof Supreme "|T|n giving advisory opinions, judges of the Court do court, only express opinions their not render a decision of the individual (1963); but Governor, judges, Opinion 96 R 191 A 2d 611 to the binding * opinions have no force that for this reason such * * * * * ; questions .” be entertained of fact cannot Mich Opinion op the Court arguments briefs amicus curiae. vited Oral were 9,1973. heard on March questions

The three before the Court are: object 1. Does the act embrace more than one following Michigan violation of tation: "No law constitutional limi- shаll object, embrace more than one expressed shall be its title.” Const §24.

2. the "modification by Does or amendment reference Michigan any statutory provisions respect other with by law of section to the substantive torts reason of following Michigan 3135” the lim- violate constitutional revised, itation: "No law shall be reference to its title Act altered or amended shall be altered or amended only. The section or sections of the pub- and reenacted length.” lished at Const art 25.§ phrases impairment body 3. Are "serious func- the "permanent disfigurement” as used in tion” and serious legal interpretation?” 3135 of the Act "sufficient for § ISSUES:

1. question posed by The first the Court raises the legislation issue of whether the is unconstitutional 4, 24, violating as which reads: § object, shall embrace more than one "No law expressed in bill shall be altered or shall be its title. No through passage either house so as to amended on its change original purpose determined its total as its and not its title.” content alone used, infrequently there is little to so new and Because art is however, say, guides. upon is safe to that the It for definite draw advisory opinions authorizing provision was not in- constitutional people adjudicative right upon to an to encroach tended unconstitiitionality. particularized claims of of their determination This signatory ‍​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‍justices opinion of the several opinion constitutes the by any facts or and unadorned upon the act the bare words of based It is no more. combination of facts. PA Opinion Court provision has been since every The Constitution opinion act does It is Court that than object embrace more one that in the title. expressed is one subject Emphasis given to the fact inherently constitutes a code and matter encom- scope enough of a code must be broad drafting necessary the various facets to the pass of. design law. If we fail permit a unified such long may not be enactéd in so codes "one-object” present limitation is in the consti- tution. title to "The Insur- that which known as (MCLA seq.; 500.100 et MSA Code of 1956”

ance seq.), et to 1972 a number prior 24.1100 included descriptive phrases provisions all of which It surety related to the insurance business. comprehensive a broad and title was was intended, reveals, reading as a of it to cover a sectioned comprehensive surety insurance code through virtually 8302. It consists of one from Laws Anno- Michigan Compiled entire volume of and of Statutes Annotated. tated The title of the Code refers to the consolidation insurance-surety business and classification of incorporation to Michigan, regulation to insurance-surety companies, of formation companies to do business in foreign admission the insur- Michigan, to under which the conditions powers rights, to the operate, ance business may operating immunities of businesses and field, privi- imposition insurance-surety to companies and to a tax lege fee on on domestic regula- and supervision foreign companies, within the insurance-surеty companies tion violation of the act. penalties and to for state 389 Mich 441 Opinion of the Court This Code intended to and regulate did and does generally broadly the insurance-surety busi- Michigan. ness of The 1972 Legislature determined to regulate further this in Michigan by business some modifying to extent arising tort out of certain accidents require and to for security losses out arising of such accidents.

In the instant case the amendatory language the title discloses that object of the Insurance Code is to include now a modification of accidental tort liability which is intrinsic the "no-fault concept” insurance or "automobile injury repara- tion reform” concept. Legislature might have chosen a different statute to append which to an or a amendment new separate might statute have been enacted —but either choice would have brought on the same criticisms which have been raised here. Almost certainly, it would then have been argued that it was the Insurance Code which should have been amended. event,

In any possible all presumptions should be afforded to find constitutionality. The amended title should reasonably, be construed narrowly unnecessary with technicality.

The addition of the phrases "to tort modify liability arising out of accidents; certain to require security for arising losses out of certain accidents” directly relates to the business. insurance-surety This entails reimbursement of and security losses, particularly relationship to motor vehicle accidents. Much of the said business relates losses from It accidental torts. is and was reasona- Legislature ble logical for the to classify the matter herein referred to as related to the Insur- ance Code. Such action cannot said to have been prompted by deceit or some ulterior motive. "logrolling” argument may The so-called be valid PA 294 Opinion of the Court instances, but in this case. apply in some does not in being was and had The Code been since question to have The amendment cannot be said passage of a understood fully allowed the law not complex and (although subject matter be may understand), layman for a or difficult brought having into subjects the Code amendment Legis- no with the Insurance The connection Code. public lature were well aware legislation. and context of this One intention assuming piece legisla- probably safe no tion statehood has received more attention since change than the in the present more noted been injury reparation provisions. automobile germane include to its may An act all matters provisions It include all those object. may to, implement carry relate out and directly cases will object. As a review of the principal show, limitation purpose of this constitutional legislators public that both the and the is to insure legislative content and to proper have notice of subterfuge. prevent deceit and in Maki v recently was discussed provision The (1971). Tawas, majority East Mich following p рrinciple 157 the reaffirmed Board of Control for in MacLean v State quoted (1940): Education, 294 Mich 45 Vocational " provision designed mainly was 'The constitutional legislature passing fully prevent from laws 64; understood, [1885], 58 it Mich was Thomas v Collins act, passing legislature, an should intended that General, design, Attorney ex rel. fairly of its notified 580; [1886], 59 Mich and that Longyear, v Weiner might legislatures understand parties interested germane only provisions to the the title that from object enacted, v expressed would be Blades therein [1889], of Detroit Board of Water Commissioners bringing subjects into one bill 366; Mich and to avoid 466 389 Mich 441 Opinion op the Court diverse in their nature and having no necessary connec- tion, but with a to combining view in their the favor of all—or log- advocates what is commonly spoken asof legislation. rolling in State Mutual Rodded Fire Ins. Co. ” [1934], v Foster 267 Mich 118.’ The particular Maki section at in issue de- was clared unconstitutional. spoke The title of immu- governmental nity from negligence acts of while the spoke itself of immunity from all tort liability incurred while in engaged governmental a Thus, function. the section scope exceeded of the the title and was severed from the remainder of the act. in Kuhn v Department of Trea- plaintiffs

The (1971) sury, 384 Mich 378 sought judgment a declaring the state income tax act unconstitu- tional. In affirming judgment summary for defendant, the Court said at 387-388: "Plaintiffs’ next contention is that the Act violates 1963, 4, §24, of Constitution art because in imposing addition to tax it appropriates a three million Department dollars to revenue division Treasury expenses to cover initial of administration and long enforcement. This consistently Court has and said 4, §24, object’ provisions art and similar 'one in constitutions, earlier are to reasonably be construed 'and not in so narrow and technical sense as unneces sarily legislation.’ (1868), Ryerson Utley embarrass v 269, 277, citing Drake, People, Mich rel. ex Maha v (1865), ney object 13 Mich 494. The of the Act was provide for creation and collection of a income state appropriation tax. in utterly germane the Act was object. may doing to that A statute authorize the of all things general are in purpose furtherance of violating limitation object’ the Act without the 'one appropriation art and an Act so § provisions disposition finance its administration proper of the taxes collected are constitutional.” PA 294 Opinion of the Court Carey, v People was used in language Similar (1969) version discussing an earlier Mich 4, 24: art § 5, 21, was to purpose of Const "The main fully legislature passing from laws

prevent subjects bringing to avoid into one bill understood necessary connec- having in their nature and no diverse passing legislature, It intended tion. was design that the title law, fairly notified of its should be public might from legislature understand object germane expressed to the only provisions that be enacted.”2 would notice, above, not restric- goal indicated

As 1644, No in Local Court, This legislation. of tion Corp, ME, AFL-CIO, Hospital v Oakwood AFSC & 79, (1962), 91 said: 367 Mich 'object’ of a held that cases have "Numerous general purpose or aim of the enactment. statute is by it to do empower body a created legislature may carry expedient requisite, necessary or everything Legislation, if objective to be attained. principal out it because em- object, is not invalid primary a it has attaining primary its 1 means of more than braces ” added.) object. (Emphasis v Association System Funeral Metropolitan In Insurance, (1951), 331 Mich Commissioner constitutionality contesting were plaintiffs in the mortu- engaged required those an act which the insur- connection with to sever all ary business that the act was argument One ance business. busi- mortuary the insurance regulated both Gaylord City City Gaylord opinion v Also see Justice Adams’ Cooley saying (1966) quoted Clerk, Justice he 378 Mich 273 where 4, 24§ " reasonably, in so narrow and '[OJught and not to be construed legislation.’ Ryerson unnecessarily to a sense as embarrass technical Drake, citing People, 269, [1868], ex rel. v. Utley, 16 Mich v. Mahaney, 13 Mich 494 [1865].” 389 Mich Opinion op the Court ness whereas the title of the spoke only regulation of insurance. This was a viola- allegedly tion of predecessor to art 24. In rejecting § claim, quoted the Court Regents 192 from University of Michigan v Pray, 264 Mich 693 (1933):

" 'Being codification, the statute necessarily embod- ies various and somewhat provisions diversified of the against drain law. But as objections raised, here we do not find Constitution, that the act violates article of the § it that embraces object more than one or because the title is deficient it is not suffi- in. ciently provisions broad to cover the of the act. Title to a codification scarcely statute can expected to em- body every reference to detail of the act. Such is not the requirement. constitutional legislators If fairly apprises the title public and the generally of the act as a whole, such title is sufficient. Vernor Secretary v State, (Ann 128) 179 Mich 157 [1914], Cas 1915D If the adequate, title is and the statute contains germane which is general purposes, its it does not ” 5, 21, offend article of the State Constitution.’

Perhaps explicit the most explanation purpose behind one-object provision is found in Rohan Racing Association, v Detroit 314 Mich 326 (1946), where the Court at 355-356 quoted the following from Commerce-Guardian provisions Savings Michigan, Trust & Bank v 228 Mich 316 (1924): " provision adopted 'This pur was in first Constitu- tion, subsequent and has remained in the several revi- change. purpose sions without Its and the effect to be given legislature by many to it have been times passed upon by discussed and at the outset that the this It may court. be said provision designed to serve two First, purposes. prevent by legislature action receiving

without requi- the concurrence therein of the together site by "bringing number of members into — 469 op Opinion the Court having nature, no subjects bill diverse their

one connection, in their necessary with a view to combine spoken commonly the advocates of favor all.” —What is legislation log-rolling prevent also to of —and being gave the titles clauses bills of which —"inserted intimation, legis- passage through no and their secured generally aware lative bodies whose members were not Drake, v. Peоple, their intention and effect.” ex rel. second, And, to to Mahaney, "challenge Mich. 494 [1865]. the attention” of the act those affected People Wohlford, provisions. v its 226 Mich. ”3 [1924].’ clear and Precedent the careful consideration question of the various facets the first dictates opinion Court the act embraces subject expressed one which is in the title. 1972 PA question posed The second is whether Michigan the 1963 violates §25 Constitution which reads: revised,

"No law shall be altered or amended only. reference to its title The section or sections of the pub- amended shall re-enacted and act altered or lished at length.” provided Constitution in art 4, §25: revised, altered or amended

"No law shall be only; title the act revised and the reference to its but or amended section or sections of the act altered shall length.” published at be re-enacted and Except punctuation and some rear- some Board of Water Commissioners of To like effect are Blades v (1891) Detroit, Cummings, (1899), v Wardle 86 Mich 395 122 Mich 366 Co, People Secretary State v State Insurance ex rel 19 Mich (1869). 389 Mich Opinion op the Court rangement provi- of words in the latter half of the language sion, through this has continued to this (also 22). Const, date see 1908 5, §§ 21, given determining The first consideration meaning language simply of constitutional should especially important be to read it. It is that we do so in this matter before the Court because inter- pretations years leading away over the seem to be "plain simple language” from the of the sec- tion. language quite says §25 clear. It

succinctly straightforwardly that no law enactment) (meaning statutory revised, shall be only. altered or amended reference to its title language proceeds The constitutional then to state (i.e., how it shall be done section[s] of the act in question by reenacting shall be amended and re- publishing length). Although

There are two sentences "law”, the second word is it is obvious from the reading of the entire section that "law” means act or section of an act. Section 25 is worded to prevent revising, altering amending of an by merely referring to the title of the act and printing amendatory language then under con- revision, sideration. If such a alteration or amend- public Legislature allowed, ment were and the given would not be notice and would not be able to readily observe the extent and effect of such revi- sion, alteration or amendment. determining

A second consideration in meaning language analysis of constitutional is the precedent. interpreted the courts How have this language? pursuing precedent, In those cases de- proximate cided at a time constitution are to the ratification of the

important they better language meaning reflect the tution at the time it was written. of the consti- Opinion op the Court instance, In this the important most case source Mahaney, v (1865). People is 13 Mich 481 As noted above, language the of first in the appeared §25 Court, In Mahaney, constitution. speak- the ing through Justice had to resolve several Cooley, challenges to the enactment a establish of law "to Detroit”, police government a (p the of city 490.) The act called for a transfer of duties of public various repealed officials and all inconsist- ent The legislation acts. it quite was broad for not only instituted a police government modified but constables, "the powers sheriffs, and duties of wa- commissioners, marshals, ter and sewer mayors justices, imposes upon new duties citizen”, 497.) executive and the (p of Much Justice discussion in Mahaney Cooley’s particularly pertinent present to the case. An example is this pp statement found on 497: "If, passed, a necessary whenever new statute is it is prior that all implication statutes it by modified published should be length re-enacted as modi- fied, large portion a then of whole of code laws of require republished the state would at every session, parts over, itof several times until from material, immensity the mere sible to tell what it impos- would be law was.” Court, From the arguments presented to this it appears might that over 200 statutes be related in PA It way some to 1972 that conceded there are others but even related shown on the print-outs.4 computer To hold that each these thereof, portions possibly hundreds acts or act, addition to the must be subject reenacted and republished illustrates clearly unreasonable- (1972). Wayne County, v Cf. Alan 388 Mich 282-285 389 Mich 441 Opinion of the Court interpretation. require such ness of such an To would result the ultimate of confusion. recital Further, powers5 constitututional division legis- with that courts not interfere mandates constitu- fabricating standards not lative action required. practicality Considerations tionally Legislature sense indicate and common point, this sufficient discretion at must be allowed within discretion is exercised such provided limitations. constitutional Mahaney: in stated further

Justice Cooley provision must receive a reasona- constitutional "This construction, The give to it effect. with view ble designed the enactment to be remedied was mischief legisla- the in terms that amendatory statutes so blind regard in to sometimes deceived themselves were tors their in mak- effect, public, difficulty from the comparison, failed necessary examination and ing the (p changes made the laws.” apprised of to become 497.) for reason that another This citation indicates that notice be require 25 is to language is public of what Legislature given to the re- of the act as the content changed and being in com- This is similar vised, or amended. altered above). (see language and con- The mand to §24 give entirely 294 is sufficient 1972 PA tent of notice. that Mahaney pat from language

To continue 497: only to insert purported amendatory "An phrase for another words, one or to substitute

certain in an act only referred but was or section which to mislead careless well calculated republished, was was, drawn effect, perhaps, sometimes its as to 2.§ Const op Opinion the Court express thаt form for that was introduced into the purpose. confusion Endless law, wisely the constitution prohibited legislation.” such 1972 PA 294 does not violate these standards set forth in this reference. It revise, does not alter or amend in such prohibited fashion.

Mahaney then ruled: "But complete an act in itself is not within designed mischief to be remedied this division and prohibited cannot be held to be violating it without 497.) plain ”(p added.) intent. (Emphasis subject act details all required institution of a "no-fault” system of motor vehicle insurance. It is an act complete within itself. It falls within squarely the rule set forth in Mahan ey6

It argued, however, there can be no supplemental partial alterations to an act which are inconsistent with or which otherwise do violence any other statute. That language is not in the constitution. It is not our function to intro- duce it therein. This is not a matter of policy nor a question of whether provision can be inter- preted so as to apply a newly perceived prob- lem. We should not ask "What can it mean?” Rather, we must determine "What does the consti- require?” tution task apply Our is to the constitu- tion as adopted by people. We cannot and should not attempt to anticipate and resolve all imagined difficulties.

In attempting to determine what 25 requires, § we sought guidance have from the debates which 6 see, Roberts, (1883); Also In re 51 548 Mich Evans Products Co v Escheats, (1943); State Board of 506 Mich Checker Mutual Auto (1951) Judge, Wayne mobile Insurance Co v Circuit Mich 553 (1960). Wright, In re 360 Mich 455 389 Mich 441 Opinion of the Court in the occurred conventions convened to write the 1963, 1908 constitutions. None was en- lightening specific as to the intent prompted which passage of 25.§ Comparative

In A Analysis Constitution, prepared for the last convention by the Citizens Research Council of it Michigan, was procedure noted that in the United States Con- gress differed in that it practice was the there "to amend laws reference to by only their title and to language set forth in the amendatory 85). It said at (p p "Michigan bill” was 85 that requiring practice, bills to set forth the text of the amended, whole section to be is in that it salutory places proposed There amendment context.” every is no indication here of the theory repub- act must be affected the new statute or reenacted. lished Cooley’s

Attention is also directed to Justice comprises of enactment of laws which discussion (5th ed). In Limitations ch VI of his Constitutional to 25. predecessor he focuses on the chapter, this Mahaney forth passage from set quoting After supra, 182: he said at pon purpose provi- of the important "If this is a correct view accomplish- sion, at all to its it does not seem republished, if the law ment that the old law should full, given in such reference to with as amended law is substituted for what the new old law as will show y> * * « 183: pat He further wrote implication are others which amend "[Statutes it not essential provision; this

not within implica- the acts or sections they even refer to they tion amend.” Opinion Court Cooley

This analysis by Justice and the inter- pretation Citizens rein- Research Council force the determination 25 is directed preventing undesirable respect conduct with to particular amendment act. not It seek to does amendment, tangential correct effects which the revision or alteration may have statutes on those affected. directly

At this juncture, consideration given should be to Mok v Detroit Building and Association Savings 4,No (1875). 30 Mich 511 1869 act There an procedure provided a incorporating building and savings required associations which reference to an 1855 act. This in turn directed the reader to refer to 1853 act an dealt with the creation corporations. of mining The 1869 act did alter procedures some of the and requirements of the 1853 act. This scheme was found to violate the constitution.

The actual hard fact in the Mok case was that the act of taken in with connection that of (and 1855) an did not furnish any prescribe distinct outline or any definite course of action by which associations could sufficiently be guided in perfecting organizations it. under two acts had and objects so entirely purposes different it was impossible part determine what of the general manufacturing incorporations act was meant applied building savings corporation. case,

In that there were amendments refer- ence patently contrary were to the constitu- tion distinguishable and so are from the matter of us, 1972 PA 294. In before there the matter is no attempt to alter or amend statute reference striking or by out or insertion of words without reproduction its amended form. statute (See 515-517). Mok, pp 389

476 Mich 441 Opinion of the Court (1972) also Wayne County, Alan v 388 Mich 210 distinguishable. offending statutory There language implication. was not an amendment by p As Justice Williams said at 270: by impli- "This is not a case of so-called 'amendment cation’ such as cases which were considered and held (1865) People Mahaney, v 13 496 valid Mich (transfer powers from one another is not statute to requiring republication); 'amendment’ Underwood v an (1867) (overall McDuffee, 15 Mich revision of adding system of references new sections statute and permissible number of an old with the reference one foreign by subject new section is not to indicated where title of law which Wands, inserted); People 23 Mich v (an (1871) amending properly 388-389 act which may the effect of amends two sections law have parts body amending by implication other of the same Co, law); 24 Mich v Mich Airline R Swartwout (1872) (following holding that a Wands in new may body adds a new section to a of law statute which implication body of other sections of the same amend law); continuing line of not cited here.” and a cases Mok, also speaking In Justice Williams said: confusing "The Court noted that it was to be sent to turn the act of 1869 to the act of 1855 to be told * * * .” to the act of amendment The so-called "No-Fault Insurance” chapter title of and adds a to modifies the act complete It is a and does Insurance Code. all mislead, one act for publishes

confuse or but it to do. purports to see what world that constitutional philosophy emphasize We practical reasonable language given must be expand not extend and interpretations.7 We must 25, 37; 160; See, L 91 S Ct 27 Ed v Alford 400 US North Carolina (1970): practical concerned with conse Constitution is 2d 162 quences.” "[T]he Opinion of the Court wording out of its original and mean- context

ing resppnd in order to imagined even real mischief. by implication

Amendments are an inevitable legislative by-product govern- scheme It boggles ment. the mind the laws contemplate ab initio rendered which would be unconstitutional litigation avalanche of follow which would were we to construe 25 in so extended manner upon find unconstitutional its 1972 PA effect not purport directly

This does its terms to revise, alter or amend any act or section of an other than the Insurance Code. It does amend the title of the Insurance Code and it sets forth in full the additions to the of To the body the Code. extent which this act cuts across and affects other acts, it present does not of problem kind toward which this provision constitutional is di- rected. met, requirement

The notice has been §25 the enactment standards have met and the been complete act is within itself and meets the test of constitutionality applied by §25 Michigan Constitution. question phrases

The final whether "seri- impairment body "permanent ous function” and disfigurement” provide serious standards sufficient legal for interpretation. phrases capable

This Court holds that such are and, indeed, of legal interpretation juries or judges sitting juries frequently without have and interpret phrases bearing do comparable upon findings various facets of the law. Such result from 389 Mich Opinion op the Court denominated fact questions and thus are within province the exclusive of the triers of fact. Only when interpretation approaches per- breaches missible limits does it become question a law the Court. Such questions must approached be on a case case basis. construing

When statute, give the Court must effect legislative to the intent and read the lan- guage in light of the general purpose sought accomplished.8 8.3; 2.212,

MCLA MSA reads: "In the construction of the statutes of this state the rules stated in sections observed, 3a to 3w shall be unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest legislature.” intent of the (MCLA

Section 3a of said 8.3a; statute MSA 2.212[1]) instructs: phrases "All words and shall be construed and under- according stood to the approved common and usage of * * * language .”

Although there is a paucity cases bearing upon the interpretation impair- "serious ment of body function” because our laws have not employed heretofore, such language the word "se- rious” has been construed from early dates.9 Rele- vant cases from other ‍​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‍jurisdictions appear by foot- note.10 8 (1950). Smith, Ballinger v 328 Mich 23 9 See, Co, (1887). Metropolitan Brown v Life Insurance 65 Mich 306 10 Crandal, 527; 685; Accident Insurance Co v 120 US 7 S 30 L Ct (1887). diseases.) (Bodily Ed 740 Denman, infirmities or American Nat Ins Co v 1924). (Tex illness.) App, (Bodily 260 226 SW Civ disease or Commission, App State of California v Industrial Accident 147 Cal 2d (1957). (Permanent 818; partial, disability impairment. 306 P2d 64 or Cohen, body part.)

Loss of function of the Pa in whole or Corniаk v 150 (1942). (Permanent use.) Super 140; 27 A2d 560 loss or loss of 48; Brandenburg, App Crown Products Co v 126 Ind 129 NE2d 134 479 Opinion of the Court comparable dis "permanent

Phrases serious figurement” years have confronted courts over the apparent there has been no reluctance 11 terminology.* construe (1955). ment.) impair- partial (Impairment is loss óf a function. Permanent 1884). (CC NJ, Co, Davey v Aetna Life Ins 20 F 482 D health.) App Thompson, (Impairment of Edward Iron 80 Ind Works v function.) (1923). 577; (Impairment Guardian 141 NE 530 Ins Co of America v is loss of a Richardson, 194; App 129 SW2d 23 Tenn Life 1107 (Disabled disease.) (1939). bodily injury Furst Inman v Carl (1930). Co, 17; App (Impairment 174 96 to total or 92 Ind NE refers whole.) partial body of of member or of State loss of function as a harm.) (1957) Brown, 374; (Bodily 181 Kan 312 P2d 832 Kansas v 371; Commission, Ill 187 Barb Wire Co v Industrial 353 Northwestern function.) (1933). (Permanently v State 468 ceased to Novak NE (1934). Fund, Super 555; 113 Pa 173 A 827 Insurance Workmen’s use.) (1935) (Loss harm.) Tanner, 279; (Bodily People 3 324 of v Cal 2d 44 P2d App Campbell, Life & Accident Ins Co v 18 Tenn Provident (1934). 452; (Bodily injuries.) 292 v L H Gilmer Co of 79 SW2d Smith (1929). (Serious Louisiana, 336; permanent App 123 11 La So 451 function.) Co, Spillers impairment physical 193 So of v Jonesboro Gin 1939). (Serious (La impairment App, permanent 509 function.) physical Accident Commis- usefulness of a Tarr v Industrial (1958). sion, 834; (Impairment App 2d 331 P2d 417 is loss 164 Cal 466; Lauer, App hearing.) 21 52 NE Terre Haute Electric R Co v Ind (1899). (Bodily injuries.) Vukelich v Industrial Commission 703 function.) (1923). (Loss Utah, 486; bodily 220 P 62 Utah 1073 11 (1928). Co, (Injury F Smith & 242 Mich 217 was Brandt v C character.) Houghton County Street-Railway permanent Deneen v (1907). Fogel Co, (Injury permanent.) v Sinai 235 was 150 Mich (1965). (Permanent Detroit, injuries.) Hospital App 2 Mich 99 (1908). Co, Bay City & Electric 154 Mich 316 Fortin v (Permanent Traction Kethledge impairment.) Petoskey, injury; 179 Mich 301 v (Permanent Co, (1914). injuries.) Rapids, G H & M R Main v Grand (1919). impairment; (Permanently injured; physical 207 Mich 473 permanently ously (1942). (Seri Root, disfigured.) 300 Mich 286 McDuffie v defect.) permanent physical permanently injured; vOtt (1921). (Permanent Carey Wilson, injury.) Tabor v & 499 216 Mich (1928). Lines, (Injuries permanent.) 9 were Bus 242 Mich Leach Jurisdictions: Other Colorado, 463; 145 Colo 358 P2d Arkin Industrial Commission v (1961). permanently disfigured.) Denny (Seriously Branham v Roll 879 (Permanent (1943). Co, 233; 25 865 and serious 223 NC SE2d & Panel Shipyard, Sparrows disfigurement.) Point Inc v Damasi Bethlehem — (Permanent (1947). disfigurement.) evwicz, 474; 187 Md 50 A2d (1961). Co, 322; Manufacturing Chiquola 238 SC SE2d Bowen v (Serious Mills, Cagle bodily disfigurement.) v Clinton Cotton SC (1949). disfigure disfigurement; (Bodily facial 93; ment.) serious 56 SE2d 747 Inc, 332; Co, 101 SE2d 40 NC Construction Davis v Sanford bodily disfigure- (1957). (Serious disfigurement; serious head facial or 480 389 Mich 441 op Opinion the Court

A reading Standard Instructions Jury range civil cases indicates further the wide questions our Court permits triers of fact to example, For in negligence jury decide. cases permitted to determine "what a careful reasonably person would do or not do” under the circum- (10.01). permitted stances It is ques- to determine (11.01), tions of "contributory negligence” "willful (14.02), and wanton "gross negli- misconduct” (15.01) (14.03), gence” "proximate "in- cause” and ment.) (1947). Commonwealth, 55; Dawkins v 186 Va 41 SE2d 500 disabled.) Co, (Permanently 87; Bearing Dombrowski 148 v Fafnir Conn (1961). (Serious permanent disfigurement.) 167 A2d 458 and JJ Grady Commission, 471; Co v The Industrial 46 Ill 2d 263 NE2d 809 (1970). (Serious permanent disfigurement.) Corp and General Motors v (Del 1959). (Serious Shannon, 221; Super, 52 Del 155 A2d 237 disfigurement.) Mills, permanent Godfrey or head facial v Watts 199 (1942). (Serious 437; body disfigurement.) SC 19 SE2d 902 Hamilton v (1941). Little, 434; Haynes (Bodily disfigurement.) 197 SC 15 SE2d 662 (1941). (Serious Co, Mfg 75; v Ware Shoals 198 SC 15 SE2d 846 Co, 86; permanent disfigurement.) Jewel v Pond 198 SC 15 SE2d 684 (1941). (Serious disfigurement.) Jones Accident Fire and v General (1924). Corp, App (Seriously permanently 1 Life Assurance La 88 Co, 530; disfigured.) Kelly Telegraph-Cable v Postal 204 SC 30 SE2d (1944). (Serious Commonwealth, bodily disfigurement.) 369 Lee v 135 (1923). 572; (Permanent disfigurement.) Manning Va 115 SE 671 v (Serious (1939). Mills, 262; bodily disfigure 6 Gossett 192 SC SE2d 256 ment.) (Serious (1946). Mills, 307; 40 Mitchum v Inman 209 SC SE2d 38 disfigurement.) Ortega, v 77 faсial State New Mexico NM (1966). (Serious 312; disfigurement.) 422 P2d 353 Parrott v Barfield (Serious (1945). Parts, 381; bodily disfigure- 206 SC 34 SE2d 802 Used ment.) (1940). (Serious Co, 165; Super 14 Pavik v Glen Alden Coal 140 Pa A2d 161 Mills, disfigurement.) permanent Poole v Saxon (1940). (Serious 339; disfigurement.) 6 facial or head 192 SC SE2d 761 Inc, 185; Phillips Super 135 5 445 v Coxe Brothers & Co Pa A2d (1939). 82; (Disfigurement.) Rapp Kennedy, App Ill 101 2d 242 NE2d v (1968). Mills, Springs (Disfigurement.) Shillinglaw Cotton 209 SC 11 v (1946). (Serious 379; bodily disfigurement.) 40 and facial SE2d 502 (Serious (1933). Skinner, 150; Skelly 19 P2d 548 Oil Co v 162 Okla Co, permanent disfigurement.) 248; v Daniel Construction 253 SC Smith (Serious (1969). bodily disfigurement.) State v 169 SE2d 767 (1909). Nieuhaus, 332; (Disfiguring.) Stone v Ware 217 Mo 117 SW (1940). (Serious Co, 459; bodily Mfg SE2d 226 Shoals 192 SC Commission, Mining disfigurement.) Superior 339; 309 Ill Co v Industrial (Permanent (1923). disfigurement.) and serious 141 NE 165 (1941). (Serious Co, 415; Tinsley Walgreen Drug 197 SC 15 SE2d v Mills, Springs bodily disfigurement.) Cotton 209 SC Vick v (1946). (Serious disfigurement.) SE2d 409 facial Opinion Levin, (15.05,

tervening negligence” or "outside force” 15.06).

The must also jury decide of dam- the amount ages to be awarded in "reasonably, fairly order adequately” compensate and to injured party the (30.01). jury may The "con- decide if the injury (30.01). tinuing” "permanent” may The jury determine "the reasonable expenses necessary (30.05) care, medical treatment and and services” (30.06). earning "the loss wrongful capacity” In actions, death the jury for may determine awards losses of "parental training guidance” and or "soci- ety companionship”.

Clearly subject phrases impairment "serious of body function” and "permanent disfig- serious urement” as used 3135 of this act are com- prised of no less commonly used or understood English words of the language, language nor is the presently precise before Court than that less adopted express has been other standards determining tort phrases are liability. within province of the trier of fact and are legal sufficient for interpretation. Brennan, Kavanagh, Swainson,

T. E. T. G. Levin, JJ., Coleman, concurred M. with S. J.

Levin, (concurring). The Governor and the J., requested Senate an advisory opinion on the three questions and, to which today respond we in addi- tion, asked us advisory opinion to furnish an on questions whether "the modification of tort liability arising out of motor vehicle accidentó defined in section 3131” of the no-fault motor 294) (1972 vehicle liability act PA violates guarantees Federal and state constitutional equal protection process laws and due law. 389 Mich Opinionby Levin,

When we issued our order agreeing respond to the questions three effect, thereby, de- clining respond to the equal protection and due process questions, said, we "In prefatorily, light of the nature of the questions, the nature of an opinion, advisory time, the limitations of requests of the Governor and the Senate are granted to the following We did not elabo- extent”. rate on the considerations which prompted us to decline to respond to equal protection and due process questions. I signed have Justice M. S. opinion. I Coleman’s

write separately to explain my joining reasons for in the Court’s refusal to answer equal protec- tion process and due questions posed by the Gover- nor and the Senate. I also wish to make some additional observations regarding two of the three questions to which we do respond, questions asking whether the act violates the con- stitutional limitations prohibiting a law from em- (art bracing more than object 4, §24), one prohibiting revision, alteration or amendment of a by law reference to its title only and requiring reenactment publication of the altered (art 25). amended section §

I The Michigan provision constitutional concern- ing advisory opinions reads as follows: legislature "Either governor house of the may or the request opinion supreme important of the court on questions upon of law solemn occasions toas the consti- tutionality legislation after it has been enacted into law but before its effective date.” Const 8. Michigan’s Constitution, thus, restricts advisory opinions to Opinion Levin, questions "law”,

—important —concerning legisla- "constitutionality” tion,

—"upon requested solemn occasions” when Governor, the Legislature either house of or the legislation law —after the has enacted into been before the effective date. but appear, therefore, It would in the context opinion, advisory may ques- an we not examine fact, inter- questions concerning tions of pretation or construction of a not be may statute except questions considered as those affect a con- question. stitutional

Opponents op- of the no-fault an requested act present hearing portunity evidence support aspects deny of claims equal protection process and due persons general persons and some classes of in particular. proponent A responded of the act that an eviden- hearing tiary unnecessary "adjudica- was because pertinent tive facts” would not be to our inquiry. consider, contended, facts we need he are facts”, brought "constitutional which could be our attention written submissions. doubt, particularized

No some claims of uncon- stitutionality could be decided without considera- tion of any facts. And others could be resolved on hearing adjudicative constitutional facts without claims, however, particularized facts. Some other require finding. I adjudicative would fact was of opinion proceed not prudently that we could assumption specific on the constitutional equal protection issues by adumbrated and due process questions authoritatively could be an- hearing any swered without evidence and without findings on any factual issues.

Although opinion an is not an advisory adjudica- 389 Mich Opinion Levin, by tive decision Court binding and is not same a sense decision of hearing the Court after a on the merits precedent constitutes a under decisis, doctrine of stare our advisory opinions are public, read by the profession, the Governor and the Senate as a definitive of our expression expression views. such Any carefully must be cir- cumscribed so as not to inhibit a seemingly differ- ent determination in a contending case where the parties had have an opportunity rele- present facts, vant adjudicative as well as constitutional.

When a court holds an to be it constitutional does no more than deny particular claim unconstitutionality. not, It ought by premature expressions generalized claims, on ap- abstract pear to persons foreclose differently situated from advancing more concrete claims of unconstitution- ality. protection

The equal due process questions posed Governor and the did Senate particularize any claims unconstitutionality. It properly is not within function to hypothesize our particularized up, claims or to set speculatively, persons might strawmen classes of who claim to be disadvantaged ways various the classifica- tions and provisions the act. did, Trial Lawyers Association

indeed, propound questions particularizing claims on behalf of identifiable persons, classes of (a) (b) e.g., motor cycle operators; owners retirees, housewives, unemployed persons, stu- (c) dents, children; persons and young with vehicle damage compared property claims as to those who (d) damage losses; suffer property poor per- other are they mandatory sons affected insur- ance A requirement. representative the insur- ance Bar of Michigan pro- section the State 485 PA 294 Opinion Levin, questions

pounded particularizing additional claims unconstitutionality.1 not, however, areWe constitutionally authorized advisory opinions to furnish Trial Lawyers Association or a committee of State Bar. The breadth of the equal protection due process questions posed by the Governor and the Senate could not properly be fleshed out particularized claims set forth in the briefs of counsel for the contending groups. was, therefore,

I of the opinion that we should decline to equal answer protection and due process questions because they failed to delineate particularized claims of unconstitutionality on be- persons half of generally specific classes of persons, might because it be necessary to hear testimony, consider other evidence and make find- ings of fact in order to determine authoritatively the merits of particularized some claims of uncon- stitutionality, expression because any sustain- ing act, constitutionality unless care- circumscribed, fully might prejudice adjudi- a fair subsequent cation of a presented meritorious claim for the first time after an evidentiary hearing.

In before the Equal Protection Clause had become preeminent a ground battle of constitu- adjudication tional in controversies between the state, Frankfurter, citizen and the Felix then a professor, Harvard Law School perceptive wrote a on advisory opinions. analysis article His appli- equal protection cable to claims as well as claims arising under the Commerce Clause and Due Proc- ess Clause dealt with in the article: connection, In this it should be observed the Court could not properly questions respond large have undertaken to to such a number of response requirеd. within the limited time To have unduly impinged upon responsi done so would have the Court’s other bilities. 389 Mich Opinion by Levin, J. "Since days, Reconstruction the acutest controversies which have come Court, before our Supreme and in- come, creasingly will cluster around the Commerce Clause and Due Process. a concern, effect, These in issues powers delimitation between the of the Nation and those of the States and the eternal conflict between the freedom of the individual and his by society. control The stuff of these facts. facts, contests are judgment upon Every tendency to deal abstractedly, with them formulate them in terms of legal questions, sterile bound to result in sterile conclusions unrelated to actu- reports alities. The are strewn legisla- with wrecks of tion considered in vacuo and torn out of the context of legislation life which evoked the and alone made it intelligible. commonplaces. These are they But are the heart of the matter of American constitutional law. "Concepts 'liberty’ like process’ and 'due are too vague in themselves to solve They issues. derive mean- ing only if adequate referred to human facts. Facts and * * * again facts are decisive. Not the least of constitu- tional controversies resolve pres- themselves into the against sure of new facts inadequate the resistance of exploded or persisting legal facts assumptions. The reports furnish too illustrations of what Hux- abundant * * * ley tragedy killing of a called fact a theory. "Legislation appeal 'judgment is an experi- from against judgment speculation.’ ence as from Unless fatalism, legislation we are to embrace to a considerable extent must necessarily probabilities, be based on on fears, hopes and and not on demonstration. To meet the intricate, industrialism, stubborn, problems and subtle of modern legislature given ample must be scope putting prophecies for proof. its to the test of But legislative proposals to submit judicial to the judgment, legislature, instead of the deliberate decision of the is to legislative legislative submit doubts instead of convic- judicial tions. The whole focus of the vision becomes thereby altered. "Moreover, legislation deprived is thus of its creative legislation history function. The proof of modern is rich in support may facts be established of mea- although previously sures existence. The acci- Opinionby Levin, litigation may give of

dents time for the vindication priori may laws which a run deep preposses- counter to speculative injustice. sions claims of The whole mi- advisory opinions proposed lieu on inevitably bills is litigation different from that of contesting legislation. provision However much adequate arguments ance) may paper be made on (and experience justifies little reli- opinions advisory are bound to move in an unreal atmosphere. impact of actuality and the intensities immediacy wanting. are In the attitude court and counsel, vigor adequate in the representation legislation facts behind (lamentably inadequate even in litigation) contested gulf there is thus a wide of differ- ence, partly psychologic factors, rooted in opin- between legislation ions in advance of litigation decisions proposals after such opinions are embodied Advisory into law. upon are rendered sterilized and mutilated * * * issues. "It must be advisory opinions remembered that are merely advisory opinions. not slay.” They ghosts are that Frankfurter, A Advisory Opinions, Note on 37 (1924). 1002-1006, L Harv Rev 1008

The questions three to which respond we do satisfy criteria for an opinion in advisory they advance sufficiently particularized claims of unconstitutionality, adjudicative finding fact is not required scope and the opinion of our should not be subject to misinterpretation and should not prejudice adjudication of future actual cases.

II The no-fault motor vehicle liability act —enacted as a separate new and chapter of the Insurance changes the present system of compensat- Code — ing victims of automobile by accidents requiring an owner of a motor vehicle to maintain "secu- (which rity” for most citizens means purchasing insurance) for of no-fault payment and other others, benefits to himself and and modifying 389 Mich Opinion Levin, negligent liability driving of a motor vehi- cle.2

It has been contended that the no-fault act Michigan’s violates limitations in Constitution be- cause

(1) concept chapter The embodied in this new "object” the Insurance Code is not within the Code, with the result the Code now em- object braces more than one in violation of Const 4, § 24, art and (2) The no-fault act acts, alters or amends earlier violating thereby 4, §25, Const art prohibits amendment reference to the title requires that the altered or amended sections published length. reenacted one-object limitation, 4, § "object” expresses intrinsically

The word an concept. elastic The viewer’s focus defines gently vehicle. modification of the law of vehicles. use of a motor vehicle for which as modifies "tort ally Since tort Section 3135 of the no-fault act caused caused harm and truly harm, liability pertinent) liability” arising the modification of tort for this could be divided into negligence purpose (excluding from the excepts security (MCLA from modification intention- ownership, is in applied 500.3135; intentionally effect, the law of nuisance to insured motor maintenance or e.g., MSA essentially an insured 24.13135) negli- excepted damages expenses, further There are for "allowable work daily, monthly loss and survivor’s loss” in excess of the and three- limitations, year damages injured for non-economic loss "if the death, person permanent impairment body has suffered of serious function or disfigurement”. serious liability by The result is that the no-fault act modifies tort eliminat- ing negligent driving the common-law for of an insured injuries in automobile either serious those cases where the caused do not result in death, function, body permanent impairment in of or in serious Howevеr, disfigurement. injuries serious, if the are not so even negligent injured person’s the liable if the tortfeasor remains dam- ages expenses, loss and survivor’s loss allowable work exceed the daily, monthly three-year contained in the act. and limitations 489 Opinion by Levin, object, determining in di- the main the whether object mensions of the microscopic are or macro- cosmic in size.3

Codification of be multifarious enactments would impossible if the obliges Legisla- constitution the ture to define the object of in a codification narrow Espécially terms. codification, of case a Legislature free is to conceive of the of its object in terms of endeavors a common denominator to express conception in umbrella words.4

The Uniform Commercial Code will illustrate. sales,5 UCC replaced separate laws on stock transfer,6 instruments,7 negotiable sales,8 bulk wa- 3"(T)he 'object’ general purpose aim aof statute is the 1644, ME, enactment.” Local No AFSC & AFL-CIO v Oakwood (1962). Hospital 79, Corp, 367 Mich Co, People (1869), See v State Insurance 19 Mich where Cooley Mr. Justice wrote for the Court: may object very comprehensive "Now be and still be without objection, one before us is of that character. But it no is every necessary means essential that end and or means convenient general object, accomplishment for the of the should be either refer- necessarily reasonably red to or indicated All that can be title. required is, legislation the title shall made not be to cover itself, incongruous no fair intendment be can having necessary proper a considered as or connection.” Similarly, Regents University Pray, see Mich v (1933), Mr. where Justice wrote for Court: North codification, "Being necessarily a the statute embodied various provisions against somewhat objections drain diversified of the law. But as raised, we here do not find that act violates article Constitution, object § of the that it embraces more than one sufficiently because the title deficient in that it is not broad to cover provisions scarcely the expected the and the title of the act. Title to a codification statute can every embody reference to detail of the act. Such is requirement. fairly apprises legislators If constitutional the title whole, public generally purposes of the act such (Ann State, Secretary 179 Mich 157 Cas is sufficient. Vernor v 128) 1915D, adequate, If the and the statute contains title is [1914]. germane purposes, only article general it does that which to its not offend 5, 21, 1908].” of the State Constitution [of 5 1913 PA 100.

6 1913PA 106.

7 1905PA 265.

8 1905PA 223.

490 389 Mich 441 Opinion Levin, J. receipts,9 rehouse bills of checks,* lading,10 bank motor vehicle contracts,12 installment sales trust receipts,13 fraudulent conveyances,14 discharge mortg chattel mortgages,15 foreclosures of chattel ages,16 liens on inventory17 and many more. When enacted, first each of these separate laws stated its separate own object. However, when coalesced UCC, separate objects submerged became grand single object of codifying in one unified statute all the formerly separate statutes objects.

Similarly, the Revised Judicature Act contains chapters and sections on diverse subjects,18 all of

9 1909 PA 303. 101911 PA 165.

111931 PA 240. (Ex Sess)

12 1950PA 27. 131952 PA 19. RS ch 81. 151881 PA 117.

161939 PA 290. 17 1947PA 180. provisions concerning In addition to the the establishment of procedures, courts and court such diverse the Revised Judicature Act deals with subjects, originally separate enacted as statutes with separate objects, prohibition as the of actions for alienation of affec (the act), 127; 551.301, tions 600.2901; heartbalm 1935 PA 1948 CL now MCLA 27A.2901; governmental MSA abolition of the defense of resulting negligent operation vehicle, function from the of a motor 127; 691.151, 600.2904; 27A.2904; 1945 PA 1948 CL now MCLA MSA involving persons limitation on the of a merchant for conduct suspected larceny goods, 182; 692.861, 1958 PA 1948 CL now 600.2917; 27A.2917; wrongful itself, MCLA MSA death act 38; 691.581, 691.582, 600.2922; PA 27A.2922; 1948 CL now MCLA MSA act, among joint 303; the contribution tortfeasors’ 1941 PA 691.561-691.564, 600.2925; 27A.2925; 1948 CL now MCLA MSA as signments creditors, 198; for the benefit of 1879 PA 1897 CL et seq., 600.5201; 27A.5201; assignments now MCLA MSA of accounts receivable, 600.5401, 309; 691.901, seq., subsequently 1945 PA 1948 CL et MCLA 27A.5401, seq.; seq. et MSA et assignments of accounts receivable act as codified repealed Revised Judicature Act was embodied in the Uniform Commercial when its substance became subject assign- If the Code. object ments of accounts receivable was within the of the Revised Act, subject object Judicature how could that also be within the Opinion Levin, separate first were enacted as laws together brought

later in the of 1915 codifications The Insurance Code itself is another example.19 enacting separate instance,

In this instead of a Legislature act, the no-fault to no- chose add the chapter ‍​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‍fault act a new of an earlier codifica- tion, the Insurance Code. object

The of the no-fault act is reform of the present system compensating persons injured of generally object automobiles.20 the stated of Insurance Code is the codification of the laws "relating surety to insurance So business”. objects stated, of the no-fault act and the may appear Insurance Code different. principal

The no-fault has It two features. requires, coverage compulsory effect, insurance providing no-fault and other benefits modifies negligent liability driving. for motor

Manifestly, compulsory insurance of feature object act is no-fault within the of a of code relating laws the insurance business.

Turning negligence modification liabil- ity purpose widely feature, no- declared of the fault act is to reduce the cost automobile insur- proportion pre- ance and to increase the Ultimately paid injured persons. mium dollar finding only by Uniform in each Commercial enactment Code?— provisions of the common denominator with other enactment. See repealed the schedule 1917 PA laws is over two solid pages; enacting 1956 PA the current Insurance Code. (a) requires registrant every To that end it owner a motor personal security payment vehicle to of benefits under maintain insurance, insurance, protection property protection and residual (b) insurance; provides liability imposes benеfits for no-fault (c) provides protection limitations payable; against on the benefits (d) motorists; imposes on tort uninsured liability limitations conventional (e) supersedes inconsistent laws. 389 Mich 441 Opinion by Levin, J. (These goals may not be realized. Some proponents of no-fault automobile insurance no doubt have purposes. other The worst fears of the opponents legislation of this may come to pass. Such consid- not, erations are however, properly within the scope of this advisory opinion.)

A portion considerable of all collectible liability for negligent motor driving is funded with insur- Legislation ance. designed to increase the cost effectiveness insurance by redefining the scope of the insured person’s to, germane21 and, therefore, within the object of an act relating to the insurance business.22

The no-fault act is not legislative the first defini- tion of the risk insured. In Legislature prescribed (1905 a standard fire insurance contract 277), PA and thereby defined the risk insured under a fire act, insurance policy.23 That which had separate a object enacted, when now, originally modified, as subsequently part of the Insurance 30, 34, Code.24Chapters 40 42 of the Insurance Code contain sections regulating provisions of ca- insurance, sualty insurance, disability life insur- annuity ance and and industrial life insurance contracts.25 conclusion,

In redefining the risk insured is within the object of a codification of laws relating 21 Tawas, 151, (1971); See Maki v East 385 Mich 157-158 Loomis v (1917). Rogers, 265, 197 Mich 270-271 22 Metropolitan System Cf. Funeral Association v Commissioner Insurance, (1951). 331 Mich 185 23 277, Legislature Even before the enactment of 1905 PA had See, 167, 3,1897 regulated e.g., the risk insured. 1897 PA 2 and CL §§ 5181-5182. 24 500.2832; MCLA MSA 24.12832. 25See, 500.3008, 500.3004, 500.3006, 500.3009, 500.3010, e.g., MCLA 500.3012, 500.3020, 500.3402, 500.3406-500.3424, 500.4008-500.4036, 24.13004, 24.13006, 24.13008, 24.13009, 500.4204-500.4238; MSA 24.13010, 24.13012, 24.13020, 24.13402, 24.13406-24.13424, 24.14008- 24.14036, 24.14204-24.14238. 1972 PA 493 294 Opinion by Levin, J. insurance business. The no-fault object of the

within originally Insurance as Code ted.26 enac question posed

The by the Governor Senate 4, under art singleness object— §24 —the questions does not raise other might arise under this constitutional provision. reasons For already part stated I opinion, of this we cannot and, properly therefore, consider do not reach the questions posed additional in the filed by brief opponents of act who provisions contend that act exceed and do not conform to the "attempted title object”, and that fair notice of provisions other provided is not in the title.27 I score, have no reservations on this but do I neither wish to be as having understood such considered questions. alteration amendment —reenactment limitation, 4,

publication 25§ word, "object” so, Just as the word protean is a too, are the words change "alter” and "amend”. A law can statutory solely be viewed terms of consequences indirect, its direct or in terms of its remote, consequences or even well.

A in the change procedure maintaining an enforceability rights action alter may estab- suggest lished under other Yet no one would laws. 26 (1886); People Gadway, Westgate See v 61 Mich v Adrian Twp, (1910); People Stanley, 161 Mich v Mich (1891). (1956); Cummings, Wardle v 86 Mich case, (p In the last cited McGrath said for the Court Mr. Justice 401): specific act set "The fact the title the amended forth the purposes amended, the title to of the amendment did affect the act which it object of the amendment was within inasmuch as the scope original of the act.” title Rogers, supra; People Tawas, supra; v v Loomis See Maki v East Carey, .(1969). 382 Mich 295-297 389 Mich 441 Opinion by Levin, for, UCC, example, should be reenacted again published when the Legislature makes a change procedure in court even though proce- dural change might effectively deprive per- some rights sons of conferred by the UCC.

Chapter 8 of the Compiled Laws, concerning statutes, states rules of construction applicable to all statutes.28 These statutory rules of construction, act, much like the no-fault redefine words used in other statutes without reenacting and publishing the statutes that are affected.

The following are examples of such definitions: —annual meeting, MCLA 8.3d; 2.212(4); MSA —grantor grantee, 8.3e; MCLA MSA 2.212(5);

—inhabitant, 8.3f; MCLA 2.212(6); MSA person, —insane MCLA 8.3g; 2.212(7); MSA —issue, 8.3h; MCLA MSA 2.212(8); —land, real estate and real property, MCLA 8.3i; 2.212(9); MSA

—month and year, MCLA 8.3j; 2.212(10); MSA —person, 2.212(12); MCLA MSA 8.31, election, —general 8.3s; 2.212(19); MCLA MSA —firearm, 8.3t; 2.212(20); MCLA MSA —population, 8.3v; 2.212(22); MCLA MSA —computation period 8.6; of days, MCLA 2.217; MSA

—registered mail, mail, including certified 8.11; MCLA 2.220. MSA This common-sense legislating method of impossi- definitions would be Legislature ble if the obliged was to reenact and publish the acts affected.

The claim that the no-fault fails to reenact and publish length sections of earlier acts has 2.212(1)- 8.3, 8.3a-8.3w, 8.4-8.7, 8.11; 2.212, See MCLA MSA 2.212(23), 2.213-2.218, 2.220. PA 294 495 1972 j. Opinion by Levin, wrong-

centered around the civil act,29 act,30 ful death the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims incidentally, provision and, Act31 in the Re- establishing six-year period vised Judicature Act bringing of limitations for most contract actions.32 entirely It is true that the no-fault act makes no reading person reference to these earlier A acts. the no-fault act or the earlier acts would not necessarily changes become aware of the in the operative brought effect of the earlier acts about by the act. no-fault But this is not an absolute opinions consideration. As the of Justices M. S. demonstrate, and Williams our cases Coleman constitutionally hold that a later act can alter or repeal by "implication” amend or the effect of an express earlier act without reference the earlier publication length. act, reenactment and People (1865), Mahaney, In v 13 Mich 497 complete Mr. Justice said that "an act Cooley designed itself is not within mischief to be publication remedied” provision. reenactment although

Thus, the act considered in Mahaney express made no reference to other acts repealed and, terms, its inconsistent acts with- identifying out affected, the acts the constitutional requirement not violated. Mr. Justice was Wil- exception liams would limit for an act com- plete three-part in itself to acts which ameet test subsequent which he from derives cases as ex- plained opinion. in his

Arguably, no is an "island entire of itself’. Every haps per- on act or act draws some other acts— appropriation an act or the Revised Judica- 29 257.401; 9.2101. MCLA MSA 27A.2921, 600.2921, 600.2922; MCLA MSA 27A.2922. 257.1101; MCLA MSA 9.2801. 600.5807; MCLA MSA 27A.5807. 389 Mich Levin, Opinion by govern- establishing a unit of Act or an act ture then, a flexi- necessarily "Completeness”, ment. (which Mahaney and Mok33 cases concept. ble Jus- opinions discussed in the fully have been mark two tices M. S. Coleman Williams) two, lines further Between the outer boundaries. can be drawn. wrought by change in law principal

The former common- the of the no-fault act is modification the driving an automo- negligence in liability law for change in the there is a consequence, In bile. act liability under the civil allowable recoveries act. wrongful the death act the vicarious liability The established civil of a negligence automobile owner for of an liability the owner’s with uses the automobile driver who possible makes death act wrongful permission. though injured an an action even maintenance However, though that vicarious even dies. person and sur- wrongful for death actions liability and law, to the common was unknown vival of actions liabil- under the civil applied law substantive is the common wrongful death act and the ity act in merely extended negligence unmodified, law — and the liability act the civil by operative effect — wrongful death act.34 under the civil

True, damages recoverable signifi- have been death acts wrongful liability and, in that the no-fault changed by cantly those established rights sense, the substantive But the no-fault changed. been acts have likewise these earlier features of change the act does Association, Savings Building 30 Mich 511 No & Detroit Mok v (1875). survival, wrongful or regard death for an action See in to Law of 24.3, general Torts, p James, "In the basis 1289: Harper is the same as is concerned liability conduct as defendant’s of that for so far injuries”. personal PA 294 Opinion Levin, which make them unique, acts liabil- the vicarious case and ity one wrongful actionability survival of death and actions is other. What changed is the extent of the for liability vicariously owner is liable and which survives death, change and that is made in all cases with- regard to negligent out whether driver or sued, owner of the automobile person who or injured lives or dies. change, The thrust of the then, is not the earlier qua upon acts acts but right the common-law to sue all damages "proximately caused” negligence tortfeasor. enacted,

Before the no-fault act was a reader of the civil wrongful death acts would not have there to expected find and would not have found an elucidation of negligence, the law of length or in a nutshell. This constitutional limita- legislative tion restricts alteration or amendment law, of earlier statutory legis- not common A law. lative modification of the common law can prop- erly be enacted without publica- reenactment length tion at provisions of of earlier acts which or implement, assimilate but do not purport state, the common law.

Further, I do not the share concern that a person, act, aware of the no-fault who reads the liability wrongful civil death may experi- acts understanding ence difficulty the effeсt of the no- on fault act these earlier acts —once he under- event, stands any the no-fault act. In adding words like, "except as tort has liability been by modified (the act)” no-fault to the civil liability wrongful the death acts would not up clear any uncertainty meaning.

The Motor Claims Act Vehicle Accident autho- rizes registration an uninsured motor of vehicle Mich Levin, Opinion by However, of the no- payment under upon $45.35 it an longer operate fault act will no be lawful motor if to be uninsured vehicle it is required in this registered operated state or if in this state aggregate any of more than days for an the of the year.36 Presumably, calendar intent is that Vehi- Legislature the of the Motor damages Accident Fund to caused pay cle Claims by uninsured motor vehicles will taken over provided in the no- assigned facility the claims for precise interplay fault act as amended.37 The accident claims and the new no-fault acts earlier Bench must fa- public, not stated. and Bar thom this themselves. to ad-

Arguably, Legislature failure of of acts consti- interplay dress itself two spirit the reenactment tutes a violation of However, are not requirement. we publication "legislative labyrinth”38 confronted with a here kind dealt with in the Mok case where the acts provisions the involved Court described incapable "fragments it as which are before fitted having being effect or of understood until or otherwise acts after construction to other for them”.39 The construc- have been made places manageable. appear to be problems tional here .Moreover, con- problems here constructional main, will be cern, recovery in the source vehicles caused uninsured for accidents liable Until the matter and after October on person, authority, cautious by proper clarified vehicle on or after an uninsured injured by 257.1103; MSA 9.2803. 35 MCLA 24.13101, 500.3101, 500.3102; 24.13102. MSA 36MCLA 37 amending 3171-3176 the no-fault act. PA 345 §§ 1972 See 500.3171-500.3176; 24.13171-24.13176. MSA MCLA (1972). 38 Wayne 271 County, 388 Mich Alan v Association, p supra, Savings Building No v Detroit & Mok 1972 PA Opinion Levin, date, protect can himself by claiming under both legislative precise acts. failure to be more does present problems not intractable injured to the citizen. extent, all,

It added should be that if at there been a violation of has the reenactment publication requirement failure to because of the spell precise out the interplay between the earlier act, accident claims act and rem- the no-fault need not be a edy declaration of unconstitutional- Another ity. remedy would be to declare simply that fund con- accident claims tinues. requires, excep

The no-fault act with certain tions, commencement of an action to recover no- fault insurance benefits within one after the year Opponents accident.40 of the no-fault act contend this time limitation is an unconstitutional attempt change, publi without reenactment cation, six-year period of limitation established in the bringing Revised Judicature Act for most situation, contract In a actions.41 similаr this Court held in Evans Products Co v State Board of Es cheats, 506, 535, (1943), 307 Mich relating statute escheats did violate this that, by providing constitutional limitation "No statute of limitations of this State shall be a any proceeding defense to or action to escheat”. This Court said: referring "The law is an act escheat to a

special subject complete in and is itself. It removes proceedings operation escheat and effect of from general thereby merely statute limitations modi- fies the effect of the statute of limitations to that extent.” 24.13142, 500.3142, 500.3145; 24.13145. MCLA MSA 41See fn 32.

500 389 Mich Opinion Levin, by J. Noteworthy provision in this connection is the statutorily-mandated standard fire insurance policy provides policy that an action on the incep- must be commenced within 12 months after tion of the loss.42There have been countless cases exception general where this to the statute of limitations has been enforced. summary,

In whether the no-fault act is or is "complete comprehensively itself’, not an act covers a new negligent it

approach compensating victims of driving. Generally, automobile when a changes implica- new act earlier acts so-called identify tion, the new act fails to or reenact or publish length at affected sections of earlier acts. though spell Thus, even a new act does not out the changes in earlier acts so that a reader of the new readily act or of an affected act will be aware changes, it does not follow that the constitu- requiring publi- tional limitation reenactment and length cation changes case, has been violated. In this changes primarily

in earlier law are problems, the common fitting law. constructional . together, the new and the old do not seem present any difficulty. unusual questions many us, Like so other which reach meaning the applied of this constitutional limitation particular becomes,

to a case in the last analysis, judgment, subject a matter of put it, resolution As a talisman. Cooley question challenged becomes whether act is designed "within the mischief to be remedied”?43 Despite, concessions which have been made Attorney General, that, I am satisfied on bal- having purpose ance, in mind both the and the publication require- letter of the reenactment and 42See fn 24.

43 Mahaney, supra, See text between fns and 33. PA Opinion by Williams,

ment, the no-fault act on falls the constitutional side the obscure line Mahaney between Mok. See Checker Mutual Automobile Insurance Co v Circuit Wayne Judge, 330 Mich 557-558 (1951).44

Since the has Senate solicited advisory opin- this ion, I the liberty take of suggesting Legisla- to the ture that it follow the Attorney counsel of the and, General and of Mr. Justice Williams between 1, now 1973, and October adopt appropriate amendments to possible overcome the problems 4, under 25 art to which they § have adverted. Kavanagh, J., T. G. Levin, concurred with J. Williams, J.

I —INTRODUCTION passáge The of through no-fault act1 Michigan Legislature generated much controversy and publicity as to whether any no-fault under circumstances a conсept. was constitutional This controversy and publicity spilled over into full two days argument of by vigorous numerous dis- tinguished counsel before this Court.

However, questions the three officially asked us pursuant to Const 8 are limited 44 pertinent report opinion to the headnote official of this reads: adding code, permitted "Statute section to insurance which use policy appeal insurance or of defendant’s insurer to be lieu used in of an stay provision requiring did bond not violate of Constitution by publication length amendment merely aof section re-enactment and impliedly judicature because it section amended a of the (CL 622.23).” relating 522.33a, stay appeal bonds §§ on by 1The "no-fault” act enacted 1972 PA was 294 which a added chapter Code, 218; etseq.; to the Insurance 1956 PA MCLA 500.100 seq. chapter MSA et 24.1100 The "no-fault” act is now 31 Code, seq.; etseq. Insurance MCLA 500.3101 et MSA 24.13101 The no- passage by fault act has in turn amended since its been 1972 PA amending through 3176. §§ 389 Mich Opinion Williams, scope impact.2 way Court in no asked ^This opinion validity its invalidity about constitutional concept

of the no-fault We assume that concept perfectly the no-fault nothing constitutional and opinion expresses any thought in this contrary.3 Questions As matter fact 1 and do not go They to the substance of the no-fault act. even to whether act was en- relate no-fault procedure. proper and constitutional acted 3 raises the issue whether certain words Question sufficiently precise are constitution- used ally allow operational interpretation.5 finding opinion This concurs the matters find 1 and 3 constitutional. We Questions raised problem with the Question no with We concur presumption result because Question severability constitutionality possibility and the that our doubt on this issue should dictate 2 upon hearing arguments preliminary in In oral the the briefs and case, suggested by lawyers many interesting questions were this regarding particular participating statute sections the amicus details of on an basis applied legal might to other and theories that other scope questions of None these are within the of the statute. of may properly requested consequently advisory opinions not and the be considered fact that or and can be drawn point only to by this underscore the Court. We raise questions precluded raising litigant those or other no from opinion adversary questions in cases in this for that matter questions way merits of or the other about the no inference one because, lacking to consider them from our failure way simply or the other at jurisdiction, them one did not consider we all. 3 1963, 3, power Legislature art Quite obviously under Const has liability originate statutory as well as forms of tort or abolish 7§ express power, and constitutional the inherent concurrent with liability. change tort power of the Court to common-law 4 462, anything any above, 1, p in Question asks whether text # 4, 1963, requirements art of Const part the title of Act 294 violates by only reference” Question the "amendment asks whether 24. #2 § alone) (and the reenаct accomplished by violates 3135 that section § 4, 1963, requirements 25. Const art § of ment above, 462, phrases in p found limits itself to Question text §3135(1) of Act Opinion by Williams, present

be resolved for the in favor of constitution- ality.

Question deals with Const §24 an act’s requires title only to have one object and everything in act must be "expressed” the title. The and no-fault act title text raise issues such as the title purporting require security only for arising losses out "cer- accidents,6 specified tain” whereas the text re- quires not security only for such "certain” acci- security dents but for accidents generally.7 However, in the brief time available to this Court for properly considering preparing an advisory opinion to be useful in this matter problem for both counsel and this Court analyzing comprehensively spectrum broad possible by Question issues raised it is difficult challenge with confidence the general presump- tion constitutionality an protecting act of the Legislature, particularly where the constitutional provision involved admits of the remedy severa- bility. reasons, For these I concur with the result of constitutionality my colleagues. reached portion concerning mandatory That of the title insurance or "security” reads: require security arising accidents; for "[T]o losses out of certain * * * added.) (Emphasis 3101; 500.3101; requires Section MCLA MSA 24.13101 that owners registrants only keep not in effect the so-called "no-fault” insur ("personal protection "property protection ance ance”) insurance” and insur requires registrant keep but section also that the owner or liability act; in effect "residual insurance”. Under 3131 the MCLA 500.3131; 24.13131, liability MSA we find that "residual insurance” bodily injury property damage occurring anywhere cover must the United States, possessions its territories and or in Canada. We coverage further find that "In this state this insurance shall afford Thus, requires automobile that ance retained Section 3135”. Act 294 person security” a but "shall maintain for no-fault insur security he must maintain for the situations excluded no- regards requirement therefor, mandatory security, fault. As the of the object accidents, require security arising of Act 294 is to losses out of all for only speaks requiring security whereas the title arising losses out "certain accidents”. 389 Mich Opinion by Williams, 3, deal Question to we will Moving briefly since later, opin- 2 more this particularly Question with in in constitution- difficulty concurring finds no ion particular question under the raised. ality dealing although opinion this finds Finally, procedures 2 that the Question constitutional with with, 4, required complied art were not § not a opinion, this is advisory this is an since unconstitu- declaring the no-fault act decision no-fault is not invalidated tional. The Furthermore, opinion may to stand. this continues in an portion of a of this Court the advice conse- capacity, although exact individual the Constitu- advisory opinion under quences of an this decided yet tion of 1963 have been Court.8 free to consequently perfectly Legislature

The it conceives to be advisable take such action as act, if it so of the no-fault promote operability bill, fact, one SB a matter of least desires. As purpose for the introduced already has been respect act "with amending the civil liability.” effect on tort insurance 'no-fault’ April, MSBJ not, cannot, does short,, opinion this

In Legislature concept that or attack consider perfectly valid pass can on no-fault legislating opinion concurs legislation. and constitutional raised of the issues constitutionality in the Legislature advises 1 and 3 and Questions of Const requirements procedural follow failed to remedied, if this can be 25 but begin wishes, having without so Legislature again. no-fault act and enact from scratch in Justice Coleman’s expressions referred to this Court Prior regard constitutions which opinion to other state were written justices”. Our constitution refers "opinions of the the words contain not Court”. "opinion justices, opinions but to the to the several 505 Opinionby J. Williams, following parts all deal opinion

The this will 2. Question with

II 2: —QUESTION BASIC ISSUE here the con- question The real is not whether but of "no-fault” viable cept constitutionally Legislature the constitu- whether followed 4, legisla- procedures art in the requires tional § process. tive 3, 1963, asked under art question Const §

follows: THE AMENDMENT

"DOES 'MODIFICATION OR ANY MICHIGAN STAT- BY REFERENCE OF OTHER WITH THE SUB- UTORY PROVISIONS RESPECT TO BY OF SEC- STANTIVE LAW OF TORTS REASON 3135’ THE MICHIGAN TION VIOLATE FOLLOWING SHALL CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION: 'NO LAW REVISED, BE ALTERED BY REFER- OR AMENDED TITLE THE ENCE TO ITS ONLY. SECTION OR SEC- TIONS OF THE ACT ALTERED OR AMENDED AT SHALL BE REENACTED AND PUBLISHED 1963, 4, 25.” LENGTH.’ CONST ART SEC applied art 25 is 3135 of the no- When § § legal talking around the fault act no amount of subject plain can hide four facts: plainly "modify”

1. The no-fault act is meant very says its title so. existing law —in fact act uses the term "to 2. When the no-fault pursuant modify” and what it does thereto talking art 25 is about when it plainly what § "revised, amended”. refers to altered or Legislature cannot plainly says 3. Art § words, or, the constitutional "re- "modify”, to use vise, existing law without reenact- alter or amend” republication. ment and 389 Mich Opinion by Williams,

4. Since Legislature did not reenact republish these sections or acts the no-fault act purports to amend and since pur- the no-fault act "revise, ported to alter or law, amend” existing no-fault act plainly was not enacted properly pur- suant to the procedures required

Let us examine this more in detail. Ill -NO-FAULT "MODIFIES” EXISTING LAW The title of the no-fault act in stating pur- its pose includes: MODIFY tort liability arising "[T]o * * * added.) out certain accidents .” (Emphasis act, 3135(2)

The no-fault up the follows "modi- § fication” notice the title as follows: "Notwithstanding law, any provision other tort liability arising from ownership, maintenance or * * * use within this state of a motor vehicle is abol- * * * except ished as to: .” 3135(2)

That does in fact "modify” existing law § is clear reference to the civil liability act for example. act, The civil pertinently §401 provides: "The owner of a motor vehicle shall any be liable for injury negligent operation occasioned of such negligence motor vehicle whether such consists of a provisions

violation in the failure to of the statutes of the state or * * * * * * common observe law .” 300; 257.401; 1949 PA MCLA MSA 9.2101. legal argument exegesis

No necessary 3135(2) prove 401 are mutually contra- § § 3135(2) and that as the dictory therefore later § passed "modifies” 401.9 § purports equally modify wrongful intentionally Section 3135 death act superseding except it death caused where

(§3135[2] [a]), are involved in a death where noneconomic losses Opinion by Williams, purports existing modify” short, §3135

In "to law.

IV -NO-FAULT "MODIFY” ART EQUALS "REVISED, ALTERED, OR AMENDED” already purports to, As noted the no-fault act "modify” existing does, law. leading What does "MODIFY” mean? dic- legal non-legal, "modify” tionaries, inter- ‍​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‍use changeably with "alter” and "amend”: Dictionary— Black’s Law * * * [citing cases]. MODIFY—"To alter See ” Modiñcation. * * * change modify in; ALTER—"To make a [citing Change.” cases]. Alteration, See implies

AMEND—"To 1amend’ the modiñ- subject improves it, made in the cation which is alteration, necessarily [citing the case with an added.) (This (Emphasis language appears case.]” "alter.”) under (2d Dictionary

Webster’s New International ed unabridged)— change "4. To somewhat the form or MODIFY— * * *

qualities of; .” to alter somewhat change respects, ALTER—"1. To in one or more (a thing) entirely; not to make different with- but something changing vary; else; out it into * * * modify .” change modify any way in AMEND—"4. To or * * * change any in [T]o or alter for the better >> * * * Way English Dictionary of the Lan- Random House (1966 unabridged)— guage ed damages (§ 3135[1]) exceed and where a survivor’s § 3135[2] [b] (§ [c]). those allowed under the no-fault act 3135[2] 389 Mich Opinion by Williams, "1. change MODIFY— to somewhat the form or * * * qualities of; alter partially .” ALTER —"1. to make particu- different in some lar, size, course, style, like; or modify » * * * * * * alter,

AMEND —"1. to modify .” It gainsaid cannot be that the no-fault act’s "to modify” "revised, is the same as art §25’s altered or amended”.

V —"MODIFICATION” LIABILITY OF CIVIL ACT IS REVISION OF STATUTORY AS WELL

AS COMMON LAW There is no doubt purports to mod ify, alter or amend both common statu law and tory law. Because of the limitation of time we will only consider the effect on the so-called "owners liability, qua liability” statute. Vicarious owners owner, is not derived from common law and is purely statutory Michigan,10 governed by the so- act”, liability 257.401; called "owners MCLA MSA said, 9.2101 The owners liability statute has been derogation law, to be in of the common not facf;, Merskin, it, Wieczorek v merely affirmance (1944). 308 Mich 3135(2) purport

Section does not to "modify” liability common-law tort because it refers "mainte- arising to tort from merely liability use”, nance but refers to that liability also tort "ownership”. arising from Since there is ho purely liability arising purely common-law from owner- ship, liability it can the owners in the only be civil liability being referred to. MCLA "negligent of an owner for entrustment” is common merely law derived but is not upon (1964). on his status as owner but rather based Peuler, entrusting, his conduct in the Perin v 373 Mich 531 509 Opinion Wilúams, rise only "provision giving

257.401 is the of law” mere "ownership”.11 tort liability to agree parties arguing question All here on this purpose modify of 3135 is to only that the § statute, among the owners others.12 liability amend IN NOT VI AN ACT COMPLETE -NO-FAULT 4, 25 ART ITSELF EXCEPTION TO § argued It no-fault falls has been that complete in itself’ exception within the "act 4, repub- requirement art 25 of reenactment § 11 liability may that the It not be said owners statute is conditioned only operator. exclusively upon violation of statutes constitutes The common-law per only negligence se so that causation, question there was The and jury is not whether 'for the whether there was (1951). Schrotenboer, 642, negligence, v Mich 650 Vaas duty independent statutory of duties of due care is common-law the 136, se, Merson, negligence per v 285 Mich rule of Holmes (1955). Miles, Any (1938); Dempsey v 342 Mich 192-193 might easily person number be situations сome to mind where a of fact "negligent” by jury even found a under common-law rules though negligence per se which his violation of statute constitutes question negligence, leaving only jury of that removes from the causal relation. primary pursuant Attorney General’s briefs are the briefs February 2,1973, directing Attorney this General Court’s order of negative questions. file sides of briefs on the affirmative and only addressing Question 2 are the The the other amicus briefs briefs part Lawyers the com Trial Association and League Insurance Association— bined General Insurance —American Miller, prepared Honigman, Schwartz UAW—CAP amicus briefs (AIA). representing the American Insurance Association Cohn Supporting Constitutionality Attorney The brief of the General pp states on 19-20 as follows: constitutionality proponents PA 294 cannot "These argue art of the 1963 of said act does not violate §25 that §3135 sustained, so, would result in further Constitution. To do and be result a determination that examination of said act which could other limitation.” of the act violate the constitutional sections obviously Opposing Constitutionality Attorney The concurs concedes that 3135 modifies obvious statute affected Brief General’s brief, p readily The AIA art 25. § § violates many statutes and that "the most other Liability Act” but to to is the Civil endeavors exception” bring complete in itself no-fault act within "the act 4, § 510 389 Mich 441 Opinion Williams, by J. quotations

lication. is Reference made to two from People Mahaney, Justice in v 13 Mich 481 Cooley (1865): 1. "The terms, act before us does not assume in revise, alter or any prior act, amend or section of an act, but by various transfers of duties it has an amenda- tory by implication, effect and its last section it repeals all inconsistent acts. We are unable to see how provision (13 this conflicts with the to.” referred Mich 496). 481, complete 2. "But an act in itself not is within the ,designed mischief 4, to be provision remedied this [art * * * (13 497) 481, .” Mich § 25] being There is no doubt about there act "an complete Equally in itself’ rule. there should be misunderstanding no that the no-fault act is "an complete act in itself’. There are three tests of complete what constitutes "an act in itself’ and any the no-fault act not does meet of these tests. * * * supersedes "[t]he The first test is act and repeals all other acts in relation thereto.” Attor- ney Parsell, ex 170, General rel Fuller 100 v Mich (1894).13 Roberts, 173 To the same effect: In re 51 13 23) upon quoted by (p This case is relied the AIA brief as to apply "complete Attorney the in itself’ to Act 294. doctrine General (1894) Parsell, ex rel Fuller v 100 Mich 170 involved "revision ánd governing penal “repealer” of consolidation” laws institutions. ''parts contravening provision clause said that of acts” the of the new repealed”. argued parts "are On it was this earlier law not repealed. in conflict were The Court held that because act was the ” "complete, prior subject repealed. all law on the was Some the language gives meaning quote of the Court in Parsell to the from brief, p AIA Parsell 23: that, "It would seem in with reason to hold accordаnce when acts, Legislature certain revises and consolidates covers the consolidated, act, subject, supersedes entire revised and * * * repeals contains 66 question all acts in thereto. The act in other relation sections, management provisions and its cover the entire penal discipline and control of and institutions named. [sic] single requisite provision which There is not a of the former laws necessary management of these institutions. for the and control clause, repealing argued language that 'all "But it is Opinion Williams, Evans, (1883);14 Ripley v 554-555

Mich v Grinnell Brothers (1891);15 231-232 Mich v (1925).16 Porter Moy, Edwards, 230 Mich See also (1897). Mich "to begin To with title of the no-fault act modify” than "supersede tort rather repeal- repeal”. general Furthermore there is no Legislature, intended to leave in force courts acts and tion former act.” are substitute charter of And further on the mentary, purpose, in itself "covers the whole were If this could be done on would but was act with provided makes it Montgomery pointed out that: Mich an act certain of of the Parsed, supra, signedly omitted.’ consider prior repugnant, yet a contains to select 14 repeal. " 15 merely "The the old law 'It hereby repealed’, indicates an intention to retain those In re Ripley following. Grinned Brothers v (Emphasis to be to 100 quoted act 170, 178-179, quoting might stop. [the clear contrary opinion. governing act, corporate rule repealed outright by and provisions showing that it out parts Mich See an a repugnant. giving but "amended” Roberts, different v 1883 even while There in the that the later "all acts or of older Evans, there can be determine Shannon v is wed settled to be revise repealing added.) if the later covers the whole another charter] if ” acts debts. The act contained covering enforcement of stockholders’ 51 Mich 548 are concurring 173-174. they period may meaning and consolidate all the laws charters matters omitted it. See We contravening any many Mich did not one Moy, People, all acts or parts form are It City any provisions be held not to conflict with the new. must does no the subject.” would be unreasonable to p subject (Emphasis completely 217 doubt omitted charter. There can be no doubt time opinion in the Parsed case as follows: repealed the earlier of "an act that, of acts” not part entire assume that contravene 5 (1883). Detroit remedy (1891). last later act. Mich 26 Mich 85 purport “parts was on a no one can see from even Some of the paragraph subject, provisions added.) This case repealer a The of * * * consistent. procedural repeals was substitute, Roberts, of acts”. complete in itself’ Justice ^[1858] (1925) though to be See a "complete” subject things not and "repealer” it former provisions p 231, provisions personal liability clause. cannot be admissible all also * * * Parsell, a holds this as stdl opinions Roberts merely declaring The 51 provision, two acts are not where upon partial The act matter. provisiоns of the it wid following. omitted involved a Mich laws which last Court said the hold .” that no one would The later act like that in the "amended”, paragraph provisions or operate fust, its here complete the 1883 that the the new not that in force. this act subject, are de- process supple- Weare of this inten- later 554- case was 100 the act for 389 Mich Opinion by Williams, J. er.17

It quite clear that the no-fault act does not purport "supersede” or "repeal” all acts related fact, to it. In 3135 attempts to preserve § certain parts of prior acts or example, actions. For 3135(1) 3135(2)(a) necessarily § refer to the wrongful death and civil liability acts in case of "[d]amages for noneconomic loss” where in- "the jured person has suffered death”.

The no-fault act does not "supersede meet and repeal” test.

The second test is not single provi "[t]here sion of the former laws requisite which is necessary the management and control of’ motor Parsell, vehicle liability. supra, 100 Mich 170, 173. already

We have discussed this under the first test above. Section 3135 specifically indicates no-fault act actions and remedies are not all inclu- sive but other including law statutes must be relied on.

The no-fault act does meet not the second test of having on rely single provision "a former law”.

The third test is by formulated Cooley Justice Mahaney, himself in he where said: "An amendatory purported act only which to insert words, or phrase certain to substitute one for another in an act or only section which was referred to but not republished, was well calculated to mislead the careless * * * as to its effect wisely prohib- and the constitution legislation. complete ited such But an act in itself is not designed within the to by mischief be remedied this * * * provision supra, Mahaney, .” 13 Mich only general act, repealer Not is there no but the no-fault striking by repeal PA 294 title was amended end "and to any might suggesting repealer certain acts” not be within the coverage of the title. . 513 1972 PA Opinion Williams, by words, certainly act inserts certain

The no-fault wit, first sentence liability the civil act’s 401’s right any such as "the way modified in some is BY NO EXCEPT THOSE COVERED person AS EXCEPTED INSURANCE EXCEPT FAULT action prosecute 3135 to a civil BY SECTION § ” * * * (Added in part capitals.) falls afoul necessity interpolation This and articu- generated by rule another §25 Cooley The Detroit in Mok v Justice lated Savings & Association No 30 Mich Building (1875): * * * not changes and modifications [were] "[These] changed or of the sections made modified, the re-enactment indicating the extent but new changes, leaving parties to fit the concerned they may.” to the old as best act 210, 272 Wayne County, Alan v 388 Mich See also (1972). test, meet the third

The no-fault act does not is con- far as tort purports it because words, or to substi- "only to insert certain cerned phrase tute one another”. in short, is contained logic

In of the matter Mahaney point above. the No. reference * * * in itself does not complete "an is that * ** revise, or amend alter assume terms * ** acts.” Dramati- all inconsistent repeals but modifica- between a cally can see the difference we what of leaves doubt tion or alteration which complete a bad and good, law is what the old altogether. the old law wipes out repeal dealing modifica- no-fault act Obviously the complete repeal. tion alteration complete not "an act obviously no-fault Equally in itself’. 389 Mich Opinion by Williams,

VII —IS NO-FAULT A PERMISSIBLE "AMENDMENT BY IMPLICATION”? Attorney

As the General in of his noted one the words briefs "amendment implication” can confusing. very Actually, the words "amend- ment implication” in way pre- no constitute cise test but semantical must be viewed in the in they context are used. These contexts are various and must be viewed in to their relation fact several situations.

Justice important Cooley articulated the most such fact category Mahaney, namely, "acts complete themselves”. just We have examined this and discovered no-fault act does meet the "act complete itself’ fact tests.

A second fact category of so-called "amendments by implication” group is that there no where anything alteration only that existed but addition a not inconsistent but harmonious provision. Swartwout v The R Air Line Co, (1872); Wands, 24 Mich People v (1871). Mich 388-389 already We have consid- ered how the no-fault act modifies alters civil it liability act. Hence cannot be considered as making a harmonious addition.

A permissible third fact category called amend- implication implication ment by repeal by involves incorporation reference. Fornia v Wayne (1905) Judge, Circuit 140 Mich 631 is an example up of this. Here 1893 act set a jury an commission duties, prescribed provided and a 1903 act its juries repealed county clerk draw all The Fornia Court said: inconsistent acts. designated

"By the act of 1903 the clerk is as the 1972 PA Opinionby Williams, J. perform officer to duty. way this The act in other no changed jury the duties commissioners. The clerk * * * place is substituted of the commissioners. provisions and all the of the law of the as to the details proceeding must be followed strictly. This does not act assume, terms, revise, alter, to prior any or amend act, but, act or of an section various transfers ** * duties, amendatory has an effect .” implication added.) (Emphasis 140 Mich 634. The no-fault act does purport repeal not to any part an act outright and incorporate by refer- ence the rest of the prior act change. without

The no-fault act rather falls in category incorporation where is with by reference change rather than without change. leading case illustrating the negative application of this rule Mok v The Detroit Build- is Justice Cooley’s, ing & Savings Association No 30 Mich 511 (1875). An 1869 provided act for the incorporation of building savings associations under an 1855 act authorizing the formation corporations building and leasing housing. The 1855 act in turn provided corporations such could be formed under an 1853 act providing for the formation of mining and manufacturing corporations. The Mok Court said:

"But parties while the act of 1869 referred in this circuitous manner to requirements that of 1853 for the organization, in pense it undertоok at the same time to dis- things required by act, with some and to changes.” Mok, make some 521. " * * * * * * changes and modifications [these] [were] made changed re-enactment of the sections modified, by indicating but the extent of the changes, leaving parties concerned to iit the new 389 Mich Opinion by Williams, ” Mok, they may. best quoted in act to old as added.)18 Alan, (Emphasis More this Court case recently had similar Wayne County, Alan v 268-288 Mich (1948 (1972). PA building authority There 31) sought incorporate part Ex Sess] [1st (1933 94) Revenue Bond Act PA and at the same permit held the time amend it tax bonds. We attempting change táx without part bonds 4, art publication to reenactment and offensive Im- effect, Clay Pennoyer v Creek 25. Of like § Co, (1876);19 dissenting 34 Mich 204 provement (1929) Stimer, 272 People v 248 Mich opinion in Alan, 277; In re Petition supra, in adopted (1936). General, 462 Auditor 275 Mich from In Petition of the Auditor re quotation A General, how the supra, as to instructive both viz. 4, 25, by repeal- no-fault act offends art § in in and how the toto ing altering part, but Legislature proceeded: should have thing very that the Constitu- done "What was repeal prevent. The of section tion aimed to (section so-called 3458) of this section actually is an amendment unaffected, pro- portion and large of it remains for a publication the instant case. This sec- in for the vides says: Mok also * * * 4, provision the enact- forbids § 25] [art constitutional fragments "[T]he being having incapable effect or are ment of by or after construction in to other acts until ñtted understood * * * 529, .’’Mok, added.) quoted places made for them have been otherwise brief, (Emphasis Alan, 272, p quoted 20. in AIA in Co, 204, Improvement Pennoyer 34 Mich 208-210 Clay v Creek (1876) amending purported held invalid. was also Mok is like and 273-274.) 4, (Discussed Alan, Clay pp also § The Court saw clarity precision that possible in statutes so and for all as a mandate where prior to: referred acts are parties or necessary either omit from "p]t should be will not provisions to referred in order important sections add words ” Alan, 209, (Emphasis quoted Clay, applicable. 274. to render them added.) Opinionby Wiluams, amended,

tion, as should have been reenacted length published in the so as to amended form mandate, with the conform constitutional hereinbefore quoted.” 275 Mich no-fault the Mok falls into category, as previously because it to the indicated it leaves public try figure out where the no-fault act fits in with the wrongful civil death inserting acts removing here and words there. The no-fault act permissi- therefore is not a repeal by implication ble and incorporation reference.

VIII —CAN ART 25 BE BY AVOIDED § MAKING NO REFERENCE LAW TO

AMENDED? It suggested has been reenactment publication requirement of art 25 can success- fully making be avoided no to the reference law which would be amended. total any

Did omission of reference to the law to amended the no-fault act successfully avoid the requirements of art 25?§ The answer is no on two "A” assuming counts. amended, there no were reference the law to be if a minimal reference such as only” to "title is insufficient, no reference at all is even less "B” suffiсient. that there finding is some reference in amended, the no-fault act to the law to be such is inadequate. reference —Assuming No Reference

A making Can art be avoided no refer- § all ence at to the law to amended? should, sense,

To ask this in questioii common 389 Mich 441 Opinion by Williams, give purpose 25 is to it. The of art answer § to the certainty. if reference Obviously, notice and certainty, enough for title is not notice at all is a fortiori not enough. giving no reference notice give of art 25 is to purpose That § reading and confirmed certainty readily is together. Const considering the whole section 4, 25 reads: § revised, amended shall be altered or "No law only. to its title The section or sections reference pub- shall be re-enacted altered or amended act length.” lished at reading 25 is clear on

Immediately § only” title "by its. amendment reference good enough AND "the section constitutionally must be or amended” of the act altered or sections published length.” at "reenacted and notice. provides Publication or amended the section altered

Reenactment certainty. length provides em- on "re-enactment” A moment’s reflection requiring the words purpose of phasizes the of the amended act and the words amendatory text. This eliminates in a new together fitted to be where, as we goes to what word guessing as any the no- 3135 of comparing in seen exists have act. civil 401 of the fault act and § Cooley illustrate Justice from quotations Two purposes. two these and confirm Maha- People v stressed particularly Notice (1865): 481, 497 ney, 13 Mich the enact- remedied was designed to be "The mischief so blind in terms amendatory statutes ment of re- deceived sometimes were

legislators themselves difficulty from effect, public, and the gard their comparison, necessary examination making Opinionby Williams, apprised to become failed changes in made laws.” Building stressed in Mok v Detroit Certainty Savings 4, & Association No 30 Mich (1875): reference, in "Alterations made by statutes mere amendments the striking out insertion of

words, reproducing without amended statute its form, were well mislead, calculated to deceive and legislature as to the proposed, effect the law people but also the as to obey, they law were to }> *# * Logical construction 25 seems to inval- idate the idea that this section can avoided omitting any reference to the law to be amended. But let us consider —can’t technical on reliance "by the words reference to its title only” avoid the requirements publication. reenactment Cooley

Justice himself spoke quite on plainly the subject of trying to avoid a constitutional purpose a In People ex technical construction. Bay rel City Treasurer, v State 23 Mich (1871) he said: permissible cannot be to the "[I]t courts that order circumventions,

to aid evasions and they subject shall * * * these instruments to a literal and technical con- struction, they great if public were standing enemies progress, way in the citizen was to duty and the оf every good get provisions around their whenever practicable, convenient.” give damaging them a thrust whenever More recently again spoke this Court perti- v Revenue, Lockwood Commissioner of nently (1959): 357 Mich 556-557 words, "The literal construction of the regard without Mich Opinion Williams, J. purpose protection, to their of to make the obvious hoax, safeguard a shabby no constitutional more than a words, easily of This destroyed barrier other words. A reject. of we consti- canon constitutional construction effectuate, not tutional limitation must be construed to abolish, protection sought by to the it to afforded.” to only

Furthermore this Court has not looked real investi- purpose the constitution but apparent possibly not gated purpose the unintentional, conflicting any, statutes but even effect. Our Brother T. G. said Kavanagh side Co, 654, 672 Gallegos v Crandell 388 Mich Glaser (1972): not to a examination "A court is confined sterile itself, to its Such effect statute but must look effect. finding provi- may a that alone dictate constitutional [a * * * is direct we has denied. If effect been sion] have little trouble determining If the discrimination. however, constitutionally not offensive effect is direct we must look indirect effect any indirect effect. An effect, must legitimate more than a direct and we

is no apart purpose. 'The from the existence assay the effect that purpose cannot sustain an action permissible of a ’ ” (Footnotes omitted, em- effect. impermissible an has added.) phasis purposes this Court enforces In short Here art in their constitution. people intended is amendment there 25 intends where § enough, only” to title law "reference prior publication be reenactment there must public alike can legislators and so that length as language of law for themselves read one word from having pick to amended without another. Omission from fill in with a word act and to be amended the act reference of all art violates publish § reenact and failure Opinion Williams, Makes Act to Oblique —No-Fault Reference to B

be Amended furthest its As the extreme from "reference only”, complete title we have examined whether of reference to the amended omission act to be the art ree- requirements could obviate §25 publication. nactment We found it did not. however, appears, It act is not no-fault wording far from the 25 as to away make no reference to the amended. to be specific 3135 makes Section reference to abolition liability arising "ownership”. of tort from purely statute, only "provision There is one one of law” governing liability purely "ownership”. from There liability arising purely is no common-law from above) (see 3135(2) ownership so only can § "referring” to the liability owners statute. There IS an amendment "by reference” owners statute.

Measuring interpretation this of the no-fault act against purposes situation of notice and clarity "A”, again found in we must find that no-fault 4, violates art 25.§ General,

In re Petition of Auditor Mich (1936) is instructive as to how this Court has handled a case where there was a complete omission of reference and neither a reference to In Auditor General title nor reenactment. amendatory act made no reference to the title of the act purport repeal to be amended but did the prior act. This Court said: "Appellants contend that addition to other consti- defects, in direct tutional Act No. violation of the 21, Constitution, 1908, 5, provides that: art. " revised, amended, by 'No law shall be altered or only; the act revised reference to its title but and the 389 Mich Opinion by Williams, section or sections of the'act shall altered or amended published length.’ be reenacted and at 1935, 243, "The last sentence of Act No. Acts Pub. provisions 65, 66, 64, states that of Act No. Pub. §§ (1 Comp. 3458), §§3456, 3457, Acts 1893 Laws requiring publication of delinquent the list of for lands repealed. taxes are that very thing What was done is the prevent. Constitution aimed to The so-called (section 3458) repeal of section 66 actually is an amend- large portion ment of this section for a of it remains unaffected, provides publication section, amended, instant case. This should have published length been reenacted and in the amended mandate, form so as to conform with the constitutional (275 quoted.” [1936]). hereinbefore Mich 467-468 up, To sum

1— The clear intention people require is to the Legislature to "amend” §25 publication reenactment in order provide clarity. notice and subsequent

2— If a act "complete in itself’ and act, prior conflicts with a it repeal can but not it, although amend it an is sometimes called implication”. "amendment subsequent repeals portion

3—If a act of a prior by implication incorporates all prior change rest of the act without or amend- any ment, permissible this too is a so-called "amend- in by implication” although ment it is a reality repeal part. subsequent prior

4—If a act adds to a act but prior harmonious and not inconsistent with the act, "revision, it is not a alteration or amendment” 4, 25. meaning within the of art §

5— to the title of an act to Omission of reference act amendatory be amended in the does avoid publication and re- necessity of reenactment 4, 25. quired under art § Opinion by Williams, J. to be

6—Reference some sort failure to vio- publish ‍​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‍reenact amended 4, art lates §

IX —CONCLUSION indicates, act, as very The no-fault its title "revises, prior or "modifies” alters or amends” It comes within no as "an act category law. such repealer in itself’ complete partial repealer reference or har- incorporation by change without Furthermore, has not monious addition. this Court recognized simply an actual amendment which the conse- language avoiding omits reference as of art 25. As a it is our quences consequence, § opinion that the no-fault act violates art §25 "Yes, the no- Question must be answered Const fault act reason does violate § 25.” Kavanagh, J., T. M. C. concurred with Wil- liams, J.

I concur Brother specially my Levin’s obser- advisory opinions part vations on I. Kavanagh, J.,

T. M. C. concurred with Wil- liams, J.

Case Details

Case Name: Advisory Opinion Re Constitutionality of 1972 PA 294

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 18, 1973

Citation: 208 N.W.2d 469

Docket Number: 16 March Term 1973, Docket No. 54,503

Court Abbreviation: Mich.