Lead Opinion
Wе granted leave in this case to determine whether the minority/insanity tolling provision of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.5851(1), applies to toll the “one-year-back rule” in MCL 500.3145(1) of the no-fault automobile insurance act.
We affirm the Court of Appeals determination that defendant is entitled to summary disposition, but on narrower grounds. To decide this matter, the Court of Appeals only needed to address whether MCL 600.5851(1) tolls the one-year-back provision in MCL 500.3145(1). Because we conclude that MCL 600.5851(1) cannot toll the one-year-back rule, and all damages sought here were for more than one year back, no damages could be recovered and that disposes of this matter. Accordingly, it was dicta for the Court of Appeals to address the effect of MCL 600.5851(1) on the statute of limitations in MCL 500.3145(1) and we vacate that portion of its ruling while affirming its conclusion
i. FACTS
Daniel Cameron, a minor, suffered a closed head injury resulting in a cognitive disorder when an automobile struck his bicycle in 1996. At the time of the accident, Daniel’s parents maintained a no-fault automobile insurance policy with defendant Auto Club Insurance Association under which Daniel was eligible for coverage. In 2002, when Daniel was 16 years old, his parents filed suit on his behalf seeking PIP benefits for attendant care rendered to Daniel from August 1996 to August 1999.
Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiffs’
Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed.
This Court granted plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion for summary disposition.
III. ANALYSIS
As stated above, plaintiffs filed suit in 2002, seeking no-fault automobile insurance benefits for attendant care rendered to Daniel from August 1996 to August 1999. Defendant asserts that this action is barred by MCL 500.3145(1), which provides in relevant part:
An action for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits payable under this chapter for accidental bodily injury may not be commenced later than 1 year after the date of the accidentcausing the injury unless written notice of injury as provided herein has been given to the insurer within 1 year after the accident or unless the insurer has previously made a payment of personal protection insurance benefits for the injury. If the notice has been given or a payment has been made, the action may be commenced at any time within 1 year after the most recent allowable expense, work loss or survivor’s loss has been incurred. However, the claimant may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced. [Emphasis added.]
As we recently reiterated in Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n
“(1) An action for personal protection insurance [PIP] benefits must be commenced not later than one year after the date of accident, unless the insured gives written notice of injury or the insurer previously paid [PIP] benefits for the injury.
“(2) If notice has been given or payment has been made, the action may be commenced at any time within one year after the most recent loss was incurred.
“(3) Recovery is limited to losses incurred during the one year preceding commencement of the action. ”[10]
Thus, an action for PIP benefits must be commenced within a year of the accident unless the insured gives written notice of injury or previously received PIP benefits from the insurer. If notice was given or payment was made, the action can be commenced within one year of the most recent loss. Recovery, however, is limited to losses incurred during the year before the filing of the action.
In the present case, although plaintiffs filed their complaint in 2002, more than one year after the date of the accident in 1996, defendant does not dispute that it either received written notice of injury or previously paid benefits and that plaintiffs commenced their action within one year after the most recent loss was incurred. Thus, defendant’s sole assertion is that the one-year-back rule bars plaintiffs’ claim because the period for which the plaintiffs seek recovery for their losses is August 1996 to August 1999. This, of course, is a period more than one year before the 2002 commencement date of their action. Thus, defendant argues, and the Court of Appeals agreed, no damages are recoverable.
In response, plaintiffs contend that the minority/insanity tolling provision in MCL 600.5851(1) applies to toll the one-year-back rule with regard to damages in MCL 500.3145(1) and, as a result, the losses incurred between August 1996 and August 1999 are recoverable. We disagree.
MCL 600.5851(1) provides in relevant part:
[I]f the person first entitled to make an entry or bring an action under this act is under 18 years of age or insane at the time the claim accrues, the person or those claiming under the person shall have 1 year after the disability is removed through death or otherwise, to make the entry or bring the action although the period of limitations has run.
We note that in Geiger v Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exch,
We believe this ruling was erroneous for the most uncomplicated reason; namely, that we must assume that the thing the Legislature wants is best understood by reading what it said. Because what was said in MCL 500.3145(1) and MCL 600.5851(1) is clear, no less clear is the policy. Damаges are only allowed for one year back from the date the lawsuit is filed. We are enforcing the statutes as written.
Because we conclude that the minority/insanity tolling provision in MCL 600.5851(1) does not apply to the one-year-back rule in MCL 500.3145(1), we find it unnecessary in this case to reach the broader question whether the legislative amendments in
IV RESPONSE TO JUSTICES CAVANAGH AND KELLY
Justices CAVANAGH and KELLY choose to attack our law-driven conclusion by proffering reasons why they think the one-year back rule should be tolled for minors and insane persons. What they should be seen as arguing is that all the disciplines that judges, lawyers, and even lay people use for giving meaning to documents and distinguishing
If the statute has provisions that are harsh, they undoubtedly reflect the compromises that were hammered out in the Legislature at the time mandatory coverage automobile no-fault insurance was enacted by the Michigan Legislature. Votes were cast for the statute by legislators on the basis that the compromises would be honored. It was for them, the legislators, not us, the judges, to weigh the “competing interests” and “chose the result” to use Justice CAVANAGH’s descriptions.
As an additional argument, Justices CAVANAGH and KELLY argue that the result reached by following the statutory language is “absurd” and contend, effectively, that we should rewrite the statutes in order to reach a result that better comports with their own personal policy preferences or, as they would have to describe it, what
What this all comes down to is that the proponents of the dissents’ positions who have petitioned this Court for assistance are simply in thе wrong place. They should go to the Legislature. There the increased premium costs to the drivers of this state occasioned by the revisions they seek for this mandatory insurance can be measured against the important goals of, among other things, affordability of this mandatory insurance. We have neither the tools nor the authority to strike that balance and we recognize it. It may be that the proponents of change will prevail in the Legislature or it may be that in the Legislature’s wisdom the benefits will not justify the burden of increased premiums and potentially more uninsured drivers that will be occasioned by the changes sought. But, again, it must be emphasized, no one on this Court, or any other, has warrant to impose our view on the balance striking and make it law. The Legislature and the Legislature alone has that power. That it has struck this balance in the past in a way that strikes the dissents as “inexplicable and unsupported”
In conclusion, as judges, we have read the statutes at issue without a thumb on the scale. We are willing to enforce what the Legislature has enacted. It is just plain wrong to say or imply that we are indifferent or hostile to the rights of the disabled. We are not. We are recognizing the rights that the lawgivers gave them, and no Court should do more or less.
V RESPONSE TO JUSTICE WEAVER
Justice WEAVER has argued in her dissent the inapplicability of the one-year-back rule to this case. We believe her argument is flawed, as we will discuss, but the more significant problem with it is that, even if it is correct, it cannot apply to these litigants. She argues that the one-year-back rule limits the amount of damages that can be recovered in no-fault cases only if the plaintiff is able to bring its action beyond one year from the date of the accident because it provided notice or was previously paid benefits as set forth in MCL 500.3145(1), and that the one-year-back rule does not apply if the time for bringing the action was extended by application of the minority/insanity tolling provision in MCL 600.5851(1). From this starting point, she then asserts that the one-year-back rule does not apply in this case because plaintiffs relied on the minority/insanity tolling provision in MCL 600.5851(1) to extend the one-year period of limitations for bringing the action. The record does not seem to support Justice
But even if the record could be interpreted to support Justice WEAVER’S contention that plaintiffs relied on the minority/insanity tolling provision in MCL 600.5851(1) to extend the period for bringing their action, her conclusion that the one-year-back rule only applies in cases where plaintiffs take advantage of the later period of limitations that begins at the time of the most recent allowable expense is incorrect. This Court has consistently interpreted MCL 500.3145(1) as containing three distinct periods of limitations: two limitations on the time for filing suit (one provided in the first half of the first sentence of MCL 500.3145[1] that starts on the date of the accident, and a second, later one provided in the second sentence of MCL 500.3145[1] that starts at the time of the most recent allowable expense if the insured has given notice of injury or the insurer has previously paid benefits), and one limitation on the period for which benefits may be recovered (the one-year-back rule contained in the third sentence of MCL 500.3145[1]).
The language of MCL 500.3145(1) does not support Justice Weaver’s assertion
Justice WEAVER also argues that the one-year-back rule only applies to actions subject to the later period of limitations that begins on the date of the most recent loss because notice was given or benefits were previously paid, and that it does not apply to actions filed pursuant to the earlier period of limitations that starts on the date of the accident that may have been tolled because of the application of MCL 600.5851(1), equitable estoppel, or some other reason. Her argument is that because the Legislature began the third sentence of MCL 500.3145(1), which creates the one-year-back rule, with the word “however,” that sentence only relates back to the second sentence of MCL 500.3145(1).
Although she does not directly reference it, Justice WEAVER appears to be relying on the last antecedent rule, which provides that a modifying clause is confined solely to the last antecedent.
VI. CONCLUSION
We hold that the minority/insanity tolling provision in MCL 600.5851(1), by its plain terms, only addresses when an action may be brought. Therefore, it does not apply to toll the one-year-bаck rule in MCL 500.3145(1) because that provision does not concern when an action may be brought but, instead, limits the amount of PIP benefits a person injured in an automobile accident may recover. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary disposition and remanding this case to the circuit court for entry of summary disposition in defendant’s favor is affirmed. However, because the Court of Appeals unnecessarily addressed the issue whether the legislative amendments of MCL 600.5851(1) in
Affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Notes
This rule limits the amount of personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits recoverable to those incurred within one year before the action was commenced.
Although Daniel’s parents filed suit on his behalf, we refer to them, rather than Daniel, as “plaintiffs” for ease of reference.
In holding this way, the Court noted that one aspect of the legislative amendments of MCL 600.5851 in
Nastal v Henderson & Assoc Investigations, Inc,
Id.
Id.; Kreiner v Fischer,
10 Devillers, supra at 574, quoting Welton v Carriers Ins Co,
Id. at 291.
Devillers, supra at 588-589; Warda v Flushing City Council,
Phillips v Mirac, Inc,
Post at 96.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 97.
Id. at 98 n 10.
Const 1963, art 4, § 1.
Const 1963, art 6, § 1.
Post at 102.
Post at 103 n 12.
Defendant stated in its affirmative defenses that “Since notice was given, or payment has been previously made, Plaintiffs may not recover benefits for any alleged expenses incurred more than one (1) year before the date on which the action was commenced, pursuant to MCL 500.3145(1).” (Emphasis added.)
Devillers, supra at 574, quoting Welton, supra at 576.
It is baffling that Justice Weaver argues here that we should overrule Welton and Devillers, and change the interpretation given to MCL 500.3145(1) for over 20 years, given that she so often argues that we should leave erroneously decided cases intact simply because they are, in her words, “longstanding precedent.” Devillers, supra at 620 (WEAVER, J., dissenting). What is even stranger is that in Devillers this Court overruled part of Welton that was inconsistent with the statute, but Justice Weaver dissented on the ground that although Welton and its progeny were wrongly decided they should not be overruled because they had been in effect for a long time. Id. In this case, however, she argues that we should overrule another part of Welton with no concern whatsoever for how long it has been in effect. Moreover, she lobbies for the overruling of Welton and Devillers without engaging in any analysis of whether their interpretation of MCL 500.3145(1) defies practical workability. Robinson v Detroit,
Post at 105-106.
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2001).
Dessart v Burak,
People v Small,
Dessart, supra at 41. It is odd that Justice Weaver here attempts to overrule Devillers and Welton on the basis of the last antecedent rule when she has herself recently argued that the rule is “optional, not mandatory,” “ ‘not inflexible and uniformly binding,’ ” and inapplicable “ ‘[w]here the sense of the entire act requires that a qualifying word or phrase apply to several preceding or even succeeding sections.’ ” Dessart, supra at 44 (Weaver, J., concurring in the result), quoting 2A Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction (6th rev ed), § 433, p 372.
See Jarrad v Integon Nat’l Ins Co,
Jarrad, supra at 218.
Concurrence Opinion
oconcurring). I concur in the majority’s analysis and conclusion that the minority/insanity tolling provision of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5851(1), does not toll the one-year-back rule of the no-fault automobile insurance act, MCL 500.3145(1).
(1) I am concerned that as a consequence of this decision, the protections afforded by the tolling provision may become increasingly illusory. This provision allows minors and insane persons to bring civil actions within one year after their legal disabilities have been removed. However, the one-year-back rule of the no-fault automobile insurance act allows such persons to recover only those losses incurred during the one year before the commencement of the action. In other words, although the tolling provision instructs minors and insane persons that they are entitled to wait until one year after their legal disabilities have been removed to bring their civil actions, if they do wait, they will only be allowed to recover what may be a portion of the total damages incurred.
(3) I am concerned that as a consequence of this decision, what is arguably the larger purpose of the tolling provision will be undermined. The tolling provision temporarily places the statute of limitations on hold for minors and insane persons. The purpose of tolling generally is to allow protected classes of persons an opportunity to be made whole once their disabilities have been removed. However, if the tolling provision in MCL 600.5851(1) does not also toll the one-year-back rule of MCL 500.3145(1), minors and insane persons will not necessarily be made whole. Rather than being allowed to recover all of the expenses incurred during their periods of tolling, these classes of individuals will be limited to only one year’s worth of compensation. This is a result inconsistent with most other statutory tolling provisions.
(4) Finally, I am concerned that as a consequence of this decision, it will border on legal malpractice for an attorney ever to recommend reliance on the minority/insanity tolling period, for a person acting in such reliance may learn too late that the person whose interests he is protecting in this regard has been deprived of several years’ worth of compensation. In this regard, the tolling provision would seem to be more of a snare than a protection.
In the end, however, despite these concerns, I agree with the majority that the tolling provision of MCL 600.5851(1) does not toll the one-year-back rule of MCL 500.3145(1). I believe that this conclusion is mandated by the plain language of these statutes, and that there is at least an arguable rationale in support of the reasonableness of a statute producing this result. Moreover, I do not believe that I possess the judicial authority to impose what some, including myself, might view as a more “logical,” a more “rational,” or a more “consistent” structure for these statutes.
MCL 600.5851(1) provides, in pertinent part:
[I]f the person first entitled to make an entry or bring an action under this act is under 18 years of age or insane at the time the claim accrues, the person or those claiming under the person shall have 1 year after the disability is removed through death or otherwise, to make the entry or bring the action although the period of limitations has run. [Emphasis added.]
MCL 500.3145(1) provides, in pertinent part:
[T]he claimant may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced. [Emphasis added.]
It is a long-accepted principle of stаtutory construction that “[s]tatutes which may appear to conflict are to be read together and reconciled, if possible.” People v Bewersdorf,
Although the tolling provision temporarily delays the operation of the statute of limitations, the one-year-back rule is plainly not a statute of limitations, and therefore is plainly not the subject of tolling. As the lead opinion in Howard v Gen Motors Corp,
Simply stated, they are not statutes that limit the period of time in which a claimant may file an action. Rather, they concern the time period for which compensation may be awarded once a determination of rights thereto has been made.
Moreover, the one- and two-year-back rules do not serve the same purposes as do typical statutes of limitations.
The rules do not perform the functions traditionally associated with statutes of limitations because they do not operate to cut off a claim, but merely limit the remedy obtainable. They do not disallow the action or the recovery— a petition may be filed long after an injury and benefits may be awarded in response thereto— they merely limit the award once it has been granted.
The one-year-back rule of the no-fault automobile insurance act is indistinguishable from the one-year- and two-year-back rules of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act. As do the latter, the former serves by its straightforward language only as a limitation on the recovery of benefits; it does not define a period within which a claimant may file a cause of action. Therefore, the one-year-back rule is not a statute of limitations, and it lies outside the scope of what is affected by the minority/insanity tolling provision.
The tolling provision of MCL 600.5851(1) tolls the limitation that applies to the “bringing of an] action”; however, it does not toll the limitation that applies to the “recover[y of] benefits,” in particular the limitation set forth in MCL 500.3145(1). Accordingly, although a plaintiff may not be prohibited from “bringing] the action,” a plaintiff is prohibited from “recover[ing] benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced.”
I agree with the majority that the two statutes compel this conclusion. In the final analysis, this is not a conclusion that reflects the will of this Court, or that of individual justices, but one that reflects the will of the people of Michigan acting through their legislative representatives. The majority’s conclusion is the only one, in my judgment, that accords reasonable meaning to the actual language of the laws, as opposed to the language of the law that might have been enacted but never was. Only if this Court ignores, or contorts, the language of the one-year-back rule can it fairly be encompassed within the language of the tolling provision.
However, the “absurd results” rule must not be invoked whenever a court is merely in disagreement, however strongly felt, with the policy judgments of the Legislature. This, in my judgment, is essentially what Justice CAVANAGH does here sub silentio and what Justice KELLY does here expressly. Although the Court’s holding in this case maintains a law within our state that is contrary to that which seems to me most rational, and although I have doubts concerning whether individual members of the 71st Legislature genuinely had in mind this law,
Such a lawmaker, for example, might have intended these results in order to make no-fault insurance more affordable. See Griffith v State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co,
Conceivably as well, a reasonable lawmaker might have intended to maintain the solvency of insurers, and to enhance their ability to undertake future planning, by protecting them from multimillion dollar lawsuits filed many years after medical expenses have been incurred, and only after relatively manageable month-to-month expenses have been allowed tо develop into more extraordinary decade-to-decade expenses. Such a lawmaker might have sought to obligate those who have incurred medical expenses to seek reimbursement on a relatively ongoing basis, rather than allowing them to wait for many years before seeking compensation. Indeed, it is conceivable that a reasonable lawmaker might have wished to incentivize earlier, rather than later, causes of action in order to encourage those who have incurred medical expenses to act in a manner consistent with their own financial self-interest,
Finally, a reasonable lawmaker might have concluded that practical problems pertaining to evidence and proofs in old claims required some balance between the interests of the insured and those of the insurer.
I am inclined to believe that the principal purpose of the minority/insanity tolling provision is to afford minors and insane persons an opportunity to be made litigatively whole once their disabilities have been removed. However, what I discern as the principal purpose of the tolling provision cannot be allowed to trump its actual language. To allow such a result would enable the judge to impose on the law his own characterization of its unstated “purpose” and trump the actual words of the law. Instead, I believe, it must be assumed that these actual words better address the “purpose” of the statute than some broad characterization divined by the judge.
In Geiger v Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exch,
This Court lacks the authority to alter a statute simply because it is confident that such alteration will better fulfill some supposed purpose. While I believe that this Court has an obligation to avoid genuinely “absurd results,” a statute that is simply less well-crafted than a judge believes it could have been is not for that reason “absurd.” Something is “absurd” as a matter of law, justifying the extraordinary remedy of judicial reformation, only if it is “utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false.” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1991). Justice Scalia has described results as being “absurd” when they are “unthinkable,” “bizarre,” or “startling.” Green v Bock Laundry Machine Co,
As explained above, however, there are a number of reasons why the Legislature might have intended the statute that Geiger derogated. Because the actual language of the minority/insanity tolling provision of the RJA doеs not toll the one-year-back rule of the no-fault automobile insurance act, and because such a result cannot fairly be said to be “absurd,” I believe that this Court lacks the authority to reform this statute and to construe it in a manner contrary to its language.
In the end, I cannot read the minds of those who enacted the two statutes in question, and I do not profess to understand what may have been secretly harbored in these minds. The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the actual words of the statutes are “the best indicator of the Legislature’s intent.” Kreiner v Fischer,
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, I do disagree with the majority opinion’s statement that whether legislation is or is not “absurd” is “irrelevant.” Ante at 67.
The largest portion of medical expenses ordinarily will have been incurred in the immediate aftermath of a covered accident rather than during the year immediately preceding the filing of the tolled cause of action. Indeed, the longer the period of tolling— for example, the younger the child at the time of the covered accident— the smaller the portion of overall medical expenses that will ordinarily have been incurred during the one-year-back period.
Justice Cavanagh describes me at oral argument as having “aided” defendant in devising an alternative argument. This is a fair characterization of what occurred only if asking a question concerning a matter that neither of the parties had previously given thought can be described as having “aided” a party. While my questioning did, in fact, “aid” this Court in getting the meaning of the law right, it did not apparently “aid” in producing the result desired by the dissenting justices.
The “absurd results” rule has been described as one that asserts that “[i]t will always ... be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language, which would avoid [absurd consequences].” United States v Kirby,
In addition, Michigan has always adhered to the “absurd results” rule, at least until its apparent reversal in People v McIntire,
The 71st Legislature enacted the tolling provision, the later-enacted statute of the two statutes at issue here.
Indeed, it seems certain that the tolling provision will come into play in only a very small portion of all minor/insanity medical expense no-fault cases, and that most claimants will file actions on a timely, “untolled” basis, because whoever has incurred expenses on behalf of a minor or insane person will have an obvious financial interest in being reimbursed for such expenses as expeditiously as possible.
One of the problems, of course, with a focus on the “purpose” of a statute, as opposed to its actual language, is that the former can he characterized at widely different levels of remove from the statute. If the “purpose” of the tolling statute is not to achieve the ends compelled by its plain words, is the “purpose” instead to toll the period of limitations without regard for other statutes? Is it to place minors and insane persons in an identical position with others who have filed claims for medical expenses immediately upon incurring such expenses? Is it to optimize litigative opportunities for minors and insane persons to file lawsuits? Is it generally to do good things for minors and insane persons?
I am aware of only one other statutory one-year-back rule. See MCL 418.833(1) (the one-year-back rule of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act), referred to earlier in this opinion. There is no decision of this Court reconciling this provision and any applicable tolling provision.
Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed) defines “absurdity” as “[a]nything which is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of men of ordinary intelligence and discretion.” There are a variety of alternative formulations of the “absurd results” rule. See, e.g., Crooks v Harrelson,
Justice Kelly, who insists on approaching the instant matter from the perspective of one authorized to second-guess the legislative branch, inquires, post at 130 n 61, “What legislator would find it reasonable to reduce the cost of insurance by leaving children and the insane with little or no recovery for their injuries?” (Emphasis added.) As I have made clear in this opinion, I doubt that I would if I were a legislator, and it seems that neither would Justice Kelly, but, of course, we are not legislators. Bather, we are judges. Therefore, the proper inquiry is not that of Justice Kelly but rather, “Is it quite impossible or is it quite unthinkable that a legislator would enact this legislation?” See, e.g., Public Citizen, supra at 471; Green, supra at 511. Justice Kelly, by ignoring virtually every conceivable rationale for MCL 600.5851(1) set forth in this and in the majority opinion, not only transforms the “absurd result” rule beyond all recognition, but through her characterization of this law at its most indefensible, rather than at its most defensible, as she is obligated to do as a judge, demonstrates an inappropriate willingness to substitute her judgment for that of the Legislature. The Legislature is entitled to make dubious policy judgments without myself, or Justice Kelly, being thereby authorized to act as lawmakers-in-chief.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). This case is essentially the second installment
MCL 500.3145(1), a provision of the no-fault automobile insurance act, contains what is known as the “one-year-back rule.” The provision states that when an insurer is on notice of a plaintiffs claim for injury expense reimbursement, the plaintiff has one year after the most recent allowable expense was incurred to bring an action to recover accident-related expenses. The provision also states that the claimant cannot “recover benefits for any portion of the loss inсurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced.” Id. It is that latter portion that is known as the one-year-back rule.
In Devillers, supra, a majority of this Court held that the one-year-back rule prevents a plaintiff from recovering expenses incurred before the one-year deadline even when the reason suit has not been filed is because the insurance company has not yet denied the plaintiffs claim. In other words, the majority gave insurers an open invitation to delay responding to an insured’s claim for however long it wishes so that it can profit from the fact that most prudent people are not going to rush into court before at least hearing from their insurance company that their claim has been denied. Normally, after submitting a claim to an insurer, the insured waits for a response. But under Devillers, if the unwary person hears nothing — and, thus, does not file suit — for over a year, the person loses the right to collect the benefits that accrued before the one-year period preceding suit.
Close on the heels of Devillers, defendant now argues that MCL 600.5851(1), a provision of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA) that preserves the claims of minors and the insane until one year after the disability is removed,
Aided by Justice MARKMAN at oral argument, defendant eventually devised an alternative argument on which we accepted supplemental briefing and argument.
Having already assisted the defendant’s coup of cutting off benefits when the defendant’s own delay is the impetus for a plaintiffs delay in filing suit, see Devillers, supra, the majority now approves cutting off owed benefits not because of a plaintiffs lack of diligence and not even in the face of an insurer’s delay tactic, but simply because it chooses to drastically curtail the protection provided by the Legislature for infants and the incompetent.
The issue the majority dismisses today finds its genesis in Lambert v Calhoun,
The need and desirability for saving in one case are the same as in the other. Infants or insane persons are under the same disability whether their actions be common-law or statutory; the defendant in one case is generally in no greater need than the defendant in the other of protection from delay in commencement of the action. We are unable to distinguish the two cases or to ascribe to the Legislature such an intention. [Lambert, supra at 191.]
While the Lambert Court was comparing the right of a disabled person to bring a common-law cause of action to that person’s right to bring a statutory one, the lack of reason to distinguish between the
As much was found in a subsequent case when the Court of Appeals explicitly held that the saving provision applies to the no-fault act. Rawlins v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co,
The no-fault act, § 3145(1), does two things. First, it provides that an action to collect PIP [personal injury protection] benefits must be commenced within one year after the date of the accident. The period is tolled if a proper notice is given to the insurer within one year. Second, it provides that a claimant may not recover benefits for losses incurred more than one year before the date the action was commenced.
From the above discussion, we know that RJA § 5851 allows an insured who is injured during his minority to commence an action within one year after attaining the age of majority, notwithstanding that the one-year period of limitations in § 3145(1) has expired. The question under present consideration is whether RJA § 5851 allows that person to collect PIP benefits for all expenses and losses incurred from the date of the accident, notwithstanding that § 3145(1) generally precludes recovery for expenses and losses incurred more than one year prior to the date the action was commenced. Although this is apparently a question of first impression, we believe that the minority saving provision of RJA § 5851 should apply to the “one year back” rule of § 3145(1), as well as to the one-year period of limitations therein.
The purpose of the one-year period of limitations is to encourage claimants or persons acting on their behalf to bring their claims to court while those claims are still fresh. Burns v Auto-Owners Ins Co,88 Mich App 663 ;279 NW2d 43 (1979), Aldrich v Auto-Owners Ins Co,106 Mich App 83 ;307 NW2d 736 (1981). The “one year back” portion of § 3145(1) has a similar policy.
In Rawlins v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co, supra, this Court held that RJA § 5851 applied to the one-year period of limitations in § 3145(1). The basis for the minority saving provision and the decision in Rawlins is that aperson should not lose his claim during his minority, when he has no legal capacity to act on his own behalf. We believe that the Rawlins rule should also apply to the “one year back” portion of § 3145. A contrary rule would severely limit the utility of the minority saving provision and could deprive a person of benefits to which he would otherwise be rightfully entitled. In the present case, James Geiger, injured at the age of 16, incurred substantial medical expenses over the 2 years following the acсident. He commenced this action approximately two weeks before his nineteenth birthday. Although his right to commence the action is preserved under Rawlins, supra, if we do not apply the minority saving provision to the “one year back” rule of § 3145, plaintiff would be effectively precluded from recovering PIP benefits for the medical expenses incurred during the two years immediately following the accident. In order to advance the policy of RJA § 5851 and Rawlins, supra, we conclude that an insured who is injured during his minority and commences an action before his nineteenth birthday is entitled to collect PIP benefits for expenses and losses incurred from the date of the accident. [Geiger, supra at 290-291.]
As the Geiger Court recognized, there is little to no point to a saving provision that preserves a person’s “action” or “claim” despite the fact that the period of limitations on the cause of action has expired, if that saving provision preserves merely the right to file papers rather than the right to recover damages that accrued during the time the claim was being “saved.” Rather, the Legislature surely would not have intended to enact a hollow saving provision for people under a disability which would “save” only a sliver, if any, of the disabled’s claim.
The majority finds that my reasoning, as well as that of the Geiger Court of Appeals panel, is based solely on personal preference and not informed by the rules of statutory construction. But by creating a saving provision for infants and the insane, the Legislature has conveyed its conviction that there is some important reason to protect individuals in these groups — some characteristic that sets these individuals apart and merits giving them unique treatment. By its very existence, the saving provision recognizes that infants and the mentally infirm should be treated differently than others to whom the statute applies. The presence of the saving provision on the statute books is unrivaled evidence of legislative intent to “save” the claims of the disabled, and it is our obligation to discover what “save” means.
Should one undertake this endeavor, one would find that a saving provision that preserves the claims of the legally disabled until their disability is removed cannot be dismissed as a mere legislative whim. Rather, thе saving provision is a necessary counterpart to the rule created by this Court that prohibits minors and the incompetent from bringing lawsuits on their
By failing to consider the one-year-back rule of MCL 500.3145(1) in the context of the saving provision of MCL 600.5851(1) and what that provision is actually designed to do, the majority only partially employs the tenet that the primary goal of statutory interpretation is to effect legislative intent. As such, it does a great disservice to the critical, indeed paramount, component of assessing a statute’s overriding purpose. Instead of endeavoring to effectuate the clear purpose of the saving provision, or even questioning whether the interpretation of the one-year-back rule in this context should be informed by the saving provision, the majority misunderstands the saving provision and views the one-year-back rule in a vacuum. As a result, it reaches a cursory finding that MCL 500.3145(1) is “clear” because the one-year-back rule is not subject to “tolling.”
The reader should not be misled into believing that only one interpretation is possible in this case or that everything is “clear.” An honest reading of these statutes reveals that a conflict exists and that there are several ways in which the conflict could be resolved. Not only does the majority refuse to so much as recognize a conflict, it chooses a resolution to this case that it claims, without support, was part of the “compromises that were hammered out” during the enactment of no-fault legislation. See ante at 65. But when there are multiple competing interests, as there are here, our job is to examine them in full and choose the result that would best accomplish the Legislature’s intent.
It should bе evident that the majority’s choice elevates one concern — protecting insurers from having to pay claims in a manner the majority deems untimely— over a multitude of other important considerations. Many of the considerations the majority fails to weigh are set forth in Justice MAKKMAN’s concurrence. In addition, the majority’s choice ignores the interests of the insured, whose right to prompt and full recovery was also a paramount consideration in enacting the no-fault scheme and was also part of the “hammered out” compromises. See Shavers v Attorney General,
In any event, the majority’s analysis falters when one considers the true character of MCL 600.5851(1). By portraying the statute as having a “tolling” function, the majority is misguided into an incorrect conclusion. This is because although it may seem facially rational to conclude that a “tolling” provision cannot “toll” something other than a period of limitations, the one-year-back rule, MCL 600.5851(1), is not a “tolling” provision. It is a statute through which the Legislature granted a “year of grace” to infants and the legally incompetent in recognition of their inability to legally act until their disabilities are removed. Honig v Liddy,
By refusing to acknowledge that there is a conflict between MCL 500.3145(1) and MCL 600.5851, the majority finds this an open-and-shut case; it holds that because MCL 500.3145(1) does not say otherwise, the one-year-back rule applies to those who might otherwise be protected by MCL 600.5851. This, it asserts, is “plain and unambiguous.”
Oddly, the majority chastises me for examining both statutory provisions, apparently preferring to ignore one of them. See ante at 64. It claims that there is no recognized method of statutory construction that permits considering the effect of these two statutes on one another, both of which we have been asked to interpret, and both of which, to be given any meaning at all, are inextricably intertwined. The saving provision cannot be read alone because, by its very nature, it operates on or in conjunction with other governing statutes. With respect to its denial of our obligation to read the statutes together, the majority’s statements are not only befuddling and counterintuitive, but just plain wrong. See Bailey v Oakwood Hosp & Med Ctr,
Considering the two statutes together, then, as is our job, we must determine whether the “action” and the “claim” that is saved by MCL 600.5851(1) encompass the right to collect damages. The word “claim” has been discussed by this Court many times over the past century. For instance, in Allen v Bd of State Auditors,
“1. The aggregate of operative facts giving rise to a right enforceable by a court.... 2. The assertion of an existing right; any right to payment or to an equitable remedy, even if contingent or provisional.... 3. A demand for money or property to which one asserts a right.... [Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed).]”
In short, then, a claim means a “demand[] of a pecuniary nature,” a “right to payment,” and a “demand for money.” These definitions suggest that when a minor’s or incompetent’s “claim” is saved by MCL 600.5851(1), it is that person’s demand for monetary relief and right to obtain it that is preserved.
It is worth noting that it would be ironic indeed for the Legislature to have set a trap for these particular groups of people and to have disguised the trap as a protective measure. But that is exactly what the majority’s holding implies. For when one would choose to rely on the clear promise of the saving provision that one’s claim is preserved until one year after the disability is removed, one would come to find that, in certain circumstances, the saving provision has actually extinguished the claim, not saved it. See n 6 of this opinion.
Given the above, I would conclude that when the Legislature enacted the saving provision, it indeed intended to save the whole of the disabled person’s claim, not merely a severely devitalized right to bring the claim. Without the saving provision, those who are judicially precluded and deemed incapable of proteсting their own legal rights would be denied access to justice, so I find this conclusion unchallenging. Insureds who are of age and possess full mental faculties are, understandably, deemed capable of filing suit within a time frame that would preserve their right to recover all damages owed to them. MCL 500.3145(1). If an insured nonetheless waits to file suit, the Legislature has seen fit to limit the insured’s ability to recover damages to the year preceding the lawsuit.
But when a saving provision prevents the abrogation of a legally disadvantaged person’s claim, and when there is a statutorily recognized reason why an insured does not file suit, e.g., infancy or insanity, why that person should be precluded a full recovery in the same manner in which a person who is both culpable for not bringing suit in a timely manner and who is not under a disability is inexplicable and unsupported by the statutory language. Faced with a choice, the majority chooses a prohibitively narrow construction that results in sanctioning persons whom this Court has deemed unable to file suit. The Legislature recognized the need for an additional layer of protection for infants and the incompetent and provided one by saving the claims of these persons until they can act unencumbered by their disabilities. Nonetheless, the majority returns
In addition to the reasons already discussed, I would also give weight to the fact that the latter construction has gone unchanged by the Legislature since Geiger, supra. Had we drastically misconstrued the Legislature’s meaning and created turmoil in the no-fault system by allowing infants and the incompetent their day in court, certainly the Legislature would have seen fit to corrеct that grave error.
The majority’s disregard for the rights of the disabled —indeed, the abrogation of their right to the full effect of our judicial system — made manifest by the cursory overruling of 20 years of law, is unjust and immensely sad. And the result discords with the purpose of the legislative protection. Cogent, and what should be obvious, reasons for extending the protections at issue to persons who require them have been recognized by the Legislature and honored for nearly a quarter of a century. So sensible was the reconciliation of the saving provision with the no-fault statute in Geiger that defendant itself never challenged it until such a challenge was suggested to defendant at oral argument. But the majority proclaims omnipotent percipience of the legislative intent behind MCL 500.3145(1), while completely disregarding any inquiry into the purpose or function of the saving provision. And for those attentive to this Court’s decisions, it should come as no surprise that the majority again chooses to distract the reader from its defective legal analysis by incorrect and unsupportable accusations that those who disagree are merely promoting their own personal agendas.
And so it is that the legislative door to the courthouse —legislatively made wider for those judicially precluded from bringing suit — has today been judicially slammed shut. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n,
Even if the plaintiff diligently pursues a response from the insurance company or is actively negotiating with the insurer, the result is the same. If the insurer holds out for over a year, the reduction in owed benefits begins.
The provision states:
Except as otherwise provided in subsections (7) and (8), if the person first entitled to make an entry or bring an action under this act is under 18 years of age or insane at the time the claim accrues, the person or those claiming under the person shall have 1 year after the disability is removed through death or otherwise, to make the entry or bring the action although the period of limitations has run. This section does not lessen the time provided for in section 5852. [MCL 600.5851(1).]
“Insane” is defined as a condition of mental derangement such as to prevent the sufferer from comprehending rights he or she is otherwise bound to know and is not dependent on whether or not the person has been judicially declared to be insane. [Id. at § 5851(2).]
Justice Markman objects to my characterization of his statements as “aiding” a party. While there is certainly no bar to asking a party about various legal theories, in this particular case, counsel for defendant explicitly disаgreed in his brief to this Court and at oral argument that any distinction could or should be made between the statute of limitations and the one-year-back rule in the context of the saving provision of MCL 600.5851. Clearly, then, defendant understood and accepted as sensible the prevailing legal precedent that allowed minors and incompetents to preserve their claims in full and saw no reason to revisit the longstanding rule that a “claim” encompassed not only the mere filing of a lawsuit, but also the ability to recover all damages alleged to be owed. In other words, counsel saw no reason to, and did not, challenge settled law. Rather, counsel endeavored to persuade this Court to overturn settled law only after being “aided” by Justice Markman into seeing a golden opportunity to do so successfully. It is in that peculiar context that I find this sequence of events disconcerting.
I would not disturb that holding now, despite amendatory language in the RJA that changed the clause “if the person first entitled to make an entry or bring any action” to “if the person first entitled to make an entry or bring an action under this act. ...” (Emphasis added.) As plaintiffs brief explains, “The RJA prescribes the jurisdiction of the courts, the basis of jurisdiction, and various other procedural guidelines within our civil justice system. It also prescribes a method for disputes to be resolved through the filing of a civil action. Specifically, at MCL 600.1901, the RJA states, ‘a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.’ Therefore, it is basic civil procedure that all lawsuits filed are brought ‘under this act,’ i.e., the RJA.”
As correctly noted by Justice Markman in his concurrence, if a person is injured in an motor vehicle accident while an infant or legally incompetent, and his injuries resolve a year or more before his disability resolves, then the majority’s interpretation of MCL 500.3145(1) will completely preclude that person from recovering any of the damages incurred from the accident, and, thus completely abrogate his claim.
If a minor or incompetent person does not have a conservator to represent the person as plaintiff, the court shall appoint a competent and responsible person to appear as next friend on his behalf, and the next friend is responsible for the costs of the action.
The appointment of these persons does not remove the disability. Rittenhouse v Erhart,
Notably, the majority refuses to acknowledge its mischaracterization of the saving provision, insisting on calling it a “tolling” provision. This obstinacy derails the majority’s analysis and renders it inaccurate. Perhaps the mаjority favors this course because recognizing the differences between the design and effect of tolling and saving provisions would require it to actually engage in a straightforward discussion regarding the operation of the saving provision on the one-year-back rule.
As this Court has astutely observed, “What is ‘plain and unambiguous’ often depends on one’s frame of reference.” Staffer v Bd of Ed of Gibraltar,
Of course, I do not believe that it is equitable to preclude recovery when the delay in filing suit is caused by an insurer’s failure to notify its insured that a claim has been denied. See Devillers, supra at 594-620 (Cavanagh, J., dissenting).
Further, as Justice Kelly concludes, the majority’s result in this case is absurd. One only need peruse Justice Markman’s catalog of the absurdities that flow from the majority’s analysis to he convinced on this point. Thus, I concur in her conclusion that the majority’s analysis fosters intolerably absurd results.
Moreover, I fully concur with Justice Kelly’s thorough analysis pertaining to the validity of the “absurd results” doctrine as a tool of statutory construction. While I have always held this view, I take this opportunity to participate in the overdue disavowal of the erroneous repudiation of the "absurd results” doctrine this Court accomplished in People v McIntire,
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). Daniel Cameron was ten years old when an automobile struck his bicycle, causing a closed head injury. When Daniel was 16 years old, his parents filed suit on his behalf seeking personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits for attendant care given to Daniel in the first three years
The Court of Appeals reversed. The majority affirms, holding that under the “one-year-back rule” in MCL 500.3145(1) of the no-fault automobile insurance act, plaintiffs may not recover damages incurred more than one year before they filed suit. The majority further holds that the saving рrovision in MCL 600.5851(1), which preserves the claims of minors and the insane until one year after the disability is removed, does not apply to the one-year-back rule.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding and analysis.
The majority’s analysis and holding are premised on a fundamental misinterpretation of the no-fault act. MCL 500.3145(1) reads in full:
An action for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits payable under this chapter for accidental bodily injury may not be commenced later than 1 year after the date of the accident causing the injury unless written notice of injury as provided herein has been given to the insurer within 1 year after the accident or unless the insurer has previously made a payment of personal protection insurance benefits for the injury. If the notice has been given or a payment has been made, the action may be commenced at any time within 1 year after the most recent allowable expense, work loss or survivor’s loss has been incurred. However, the claimant may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced. The notice of injury required by this subsection may be given to the insurer or any of its authorized agents by a person claiming to be entitled to benefits therefor, or by someone in his behalf. The notice shall give the name and address of the claimant and indicate in ordinary language the name of the person injured and the time, place and nature of his injury. [Emphasis added.]
The sentence emphasized above, “However, the claimant may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced,” is the origin of the “one-year-back rule” that is at the heart of the case before us.
The majority treats this sentence, the “one-year-back rule,” as a separate limitation on the period for which benefits may be recovered.
This statute of limitations in § 3145(1) contains its own tolling provision, also provided in the first sentence of the statute: “unless written notice of injury as provided herein has been given to the insurer within 1 year after the accident or unless the insurer has previously made a payment of personal protection insurance benefits for the injury.” This tolling provision takes effect when one of two things occurs: (1) the insurer is given written notice of the injury within one year of the accident or (2) the insurer has previously paid personal protection insurance benefits for the injury.
The remainder of § 3145(1), the second, third, fourth, and fifth sentences, detail how this tolling provision is to be applied. The so-called “one-year-back rule” is not a separate limitation on the period for which benefits may be recovered. Rather, it is an integral part of the tolling rule contained within § 3145(1). This was the Court of Appeals interpretation of the statute in Allstate Ins Co v Frankenmuth Mut Ins Co,
The third sentence of the statute, the one at issue in this case, must be read in context with the other three sentences detailing how the tolling provision is to be applied. When interpreting a statute, the Court must “consider both the plain meaning of the critical word or phrase as well as ‘its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.’ ” Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward,
If the notice has been given or a payment has been made, the action may be commenced at any time within 1 year after the most recent allowable expense, work loss or survivor’s loss has been incurred. However, the claimant may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced. The notice of injury required by this subsection may be given to the insurer or any of its authorized agents by a person claiming to be entitled to benefits therefor, or by someone in his behalf. The notice shall give the name and address of the claimant and indicate in ordinary language the name of the person injured and the time, place and nature of his injury. [Emphasis added.]
The use of the word “however” at the beginning of the sentence is significant. “However,” when used as a conjunction, means “nevertheless; yet; in spite of that; all the same.” Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982). This conjunction, “however,” shows an exception
In determining whether to overrule a prior case, pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court should first consider whether the earlier case was wrongly decided. If it was wrongly decided, the Court should then examine reliance interests: whether the prior decision defies “practical workability”; whether the prior decision has become so embedded, so fundamental to everyone’s expectations that to change it would produce not just readjustments, but practical real-world dislocations; whether changes in the law or facts no longer justify the prior decision; and whether the prior decision misread or misconstrued a statute.
Correcting this point of statutory interpretation in Welton and Devillers would effectively leave the law in its current state. The Court of Appeals has held that the saving provision in § 5851 applies to the no-fault act,
Because the “one-year-back rule” is an integral part of the tolling provision contained within § 3145(1), it can be applied only as a part of that tolling provision. It cannot be used independently, as a separate limitation on the recovery of benefits. Therefore, the “one-year-back rule” is inapplicable here, where the plaintiffs never allege that the tolling provision of § 3145(1) applies.
For this reason, I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary disposition and reinstate the stipulated judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs.
I also agree with Justices Kelly and Maekman that this Court should reinstate the “absurd results” rule. The “absurd results” rule, the commonsense rule that statutes should be construed so as to prevent absurd results, was rejected by this Court in People v McIntire,
The majority states that the no-fault act contains two limitations on the time for commencing an action and onе limitation on the period for which benefits may be recovered:
“ ‘(1) An action for personal protection insurance [PIP] benefits must be commenced not later than one year after the date of accident, unless the insured gives written notice of injury or the insurer previously paid [PIP] benefits for the injury.
“ ‘(2) If notice has been given or payment has been made, the action may be commenced at any time within one year after the most recent loss was incurred.
“ ‘(3) Recovery is limited to losses incurred during the one year preceding commencement of the action.’ ” [Ante at 61 (emphasis omitted).]
In making this summary, the majority is quoting from Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n,
I do not rely on the last antecedent rule, contrary to the majority’s hypothesis, ante at 71-72.
Robinson v Detroit,
Rawlins v Aetna Cas & Surety Co,
Geiger v Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exch,
Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiffs claim was barred by the one-year-back provision of MCL 500.3145(1), consistent with this Court’s interpretation of the statute in Welton, supra. Although defendant asserted that notice was given or payment had previously been made, plaintiffs never raised it as a defense to the one-year limitations period in § 3145(1).
Dissenting Opinion
odissenting). I concur with Justice CAVANAGH’s dissent. I write this opinion to point out that the majority’s interpretation creates an absurd result, one that the Court should not permit. It is absurd to conclude that the Legislature intended to jettison no-fault
I agree also with Justices MArkmAN, WEAVER, and CAVANAGH that the “absurd results” rule is an important part of Michigan jurisprudence and should be reinstated. Four justices believe that the absurd results rule is valid and can be used in assessing a case. The accuracy of this statement is unaffected by the fact that only two of them have found an absurd result to have been reached by the majority in this case. People v McIntire
ABSURD RESULTS
The principle that statutes should be construed to avoid absurd results that are manifestly inconsistent with legislative intent is not a new or radical innovation. On the contrary, it was well-established in the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court before the twentieth century. In Church of the Holy Trinity v United States,
It is a familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers. This has been often asserted, and the reports are full of cases illustrating its application. This is not the substitution of the will of the judge for that of the legislator, for frequently words of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough to include an act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole legislation, or of the circumstances surrounding its enactment, or of the absurd results which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it unreasonable to believe that the legislator intended to include the particular act.
Likewise, more recent case law of the United States Supreme Court recognizes that situations exist when it is appropriate to depart from a strictly literal interpretation of statutory language to further legislative intent. For example, in Lewis v United States,
By its literal language, the federal act applies to a defendant’s acts or omissions that are not made punishable by “any enactment” of Congress. Id. at 159. However, the Court declined to apply the act literally, stating that doing so would not be a “sensible interpretation” because a literal reading of the words “any enactment” would “dramatically separate the statute from its intended purpose.” Id. at 160.
THE ABSURD RESULTS EXCEPTION TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE DOCTRINE IN MICHIGAN
The absurd results exception to the plain language doctrine has a long history in Michigan jurisprudence. From 1844
In Alvord v Lent,
The holding in Alvord continued a trend that lasted until 1999. Fourteen years after its decision in Alvord, this Court again heard a case raising an absurd results issue. In Cummings v Corey,
The trend did not end there, and, in fact, the Court has affirmed the application of the absurd results exception repeatedly during the last century. Cases in the 1910s,
In Mclntire, the Court gave no legal justification for not following Michigan precedent. Instead, it quoted Justice Antonin Scalia stating, “ ‘[We] agree with Justice Scalia’s description of such attempts to divine unexpressed and nontextual legislative intent as “nothing but an invitation to judicial lawmaking.” ’ ” McIntire, supra at 156 n 2, quoting
Justice Scalia’s opinion on the absurd results rule, while perhaps interesting, is not and was not binding on Michigan. Nonetheless, the Court adopted it, and Mclntire caused a ripple in Michigan law that was not clearly apparent at the time it was decided. However, Mclntire’s effect is now very clear. The damage that it has
PRESUMPTIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE FRAMERS OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION
A reasonable person must presume that the drafters and ratifiers of our state constitution expected Michigan courts to apply the absurd results rule of construction to Michigan statutes. This is because it was well-established by 1963 that courts should construe statutes to avoid absurd results and at times should depart from a strictly literal application of statutory language. Also, the Michigan Constitution includes no language disapproving this principle. Accordingly, the Court’s earlier approval of the principle was consistent with the original intent of the drafters of the state constitution.
Notably, in 1976, a time much closer to the adoption of the current Michigan Constitution than the present, this Court, in a majority opinion joined by six justices, stated: “[It is a] fundamental rule of statutory construction that departure from the literal construction of a statute is justified when such construction would produce an absurd and unjust result and would be clearly inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the act in question.” Salas v Clements,
THE NEARLY UNIVERSAL RECOGNITION OF THE ABSURD RESULTS RULE OF CONSTRUCTION IN AMERICAN STATES
A review of the case law of our sister states reflects the wide extent to which Michigan has departed from traditional norms of statutory construction. The Arizona Supreme Court has aptly summarized the traditional approach to applying statutory language in American law. It has emphasized that a court should look first to the words of the statute and apply its language if it is unambiguous. But, the Arizona court has counseled, other clear indicators
The primary rule of statutory construction is to find and give effect to legislative intent. We look first to the statute’s words. Words have their ordinary meaning unless the context of the statute requires otherwise. Where language is unambiguous, it is normally conclusive, absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary. [Mail Boxes Etc, USA v Industrial Comm of Arizona, 181 Ariz 119, 121;888 P2d 777 (1995) (citation omitted).]
In addition, prevailing case law from the highest courts of many diverse American states recognizes that courts must construe statutes to avoid absurd results or to further legislative intent. This must occur even if it requires the courts to adopt a construction that dеparts from a strictly literal reading of statutory language. The states are: Alabama,
The Iowa Supreme Court has strongly suggested that it would depart from a literal application of statutory language to
Interestingly, it appears that the Pennsylvania courts are statutorily bound to construe statutes to avoid absurd results. Hence, they are required to depart from a literal application of a statute that would create am absurd result. See In re Nomination Papers of Lahr, 577 Pa 1, 7;
The Georgia Supreme Court has also demonstrated that it recognizes an absurd results exception to applying “clear” statutory language by stating that, as long as statutory language “is clear and does not lead to an unreasonable or absurd result, ‘it is the sole evidence of the ultimate legislative intent.’ ” Ray v Barber, 273 Ga 856;
The Connecticut Supreme Court also clearly rejects an approach to statutory construction that would always apply the literal meaning of a statute in the following thoughtful explanation of its approach to statutory construction:
In construing the workers’ compensation statutes at issue, we follow the method of statutory interpretation recently articulated in State v. Courchesne,262 Conn. 537 [577-578],816 A.2d 562 (2003). “The process of statutory interpretation involves a reasoned search for the intention of the legislature. ... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. In seeking to determine that meaning, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter.... Thus, this process requires us to consider all relevant sources of the meaning of the language at issue, without having to cross any threshold or thresholds of ambiguity. Thus, we do not follow the plain meaning rule.
“In performing this task, we begin with a searching examination of the language of the statute, because that is the most important factor to be considered. In doing so, we attempt to determine its range of plausible meanings and, if possible, narrow that range to those that appear most plausible. We do not, however, end with the language. We recognize, further, that the purpose or purposes of the legislation, and the context of the language, broadly understood, are directly relevant to the meaning of the language of the statute.”[Hatt v Burlington Coat Factory, 263 Conn 279 , 290;819 A2d 260 (2003).]
In a similar vein, the Kansas Supreme Court has stated that “ ‘[i]n determining legislative intent, courts are not limited to a mere consideration of the language used, but look to the historical background of the enactment, the circumstances attending its passage, the purpose to be accomplished, and the effect the statute may have under the various constructions suggested.’ ” State v Barnes, 275 Kan 364, 375;
The Maryland Court of Appeals has likewise made clear that it does not regard issues of statutory interpretation always to be controlled by the literal meaning of a statute:
[W]hen there is some question as to whether a literal interpretation of the language used in the statute really would be consistent with the purpose of the legislation, we may look beyond that literal meaning. In such a circumstance, “the court, in seeking to ascertain legislative intent, may consider the consequences resulting from one meaning rather than another, and adopt that construction which avoids an illogical or unreasonable result, or one which is inconsistent with common sense.” [Brown v State, 359 Md 180, 189;753 A2d 84 (2000), quoting Kaczorowski v Mayor of Baltimore, 309 MD 505, 513;525 A2d 628 (1987).]
From this discussion, it strongly appears that 48 of the 50 American states adhere to the traditional principle that a court should construe a statute to avoid absurd results. They agree that courts should not follow a rigidly literal approach to statutory construction that is inconsistent with legislative intent.
The remaining state, aside from Michigan, is Mississippi. It appears that Mississippi might not allow a departure from a literal application of a statute even to avoid absurd results or to further legislative intent. My research has found no Mississippi precedent clearly recognizing the traditional absurd results rule of construction, and the Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that if a statute “ ‘is рlain and unambiguous there is no room for construction....’” 32 Pit Bulldogs & Other Prop v Prentiss Co, 808 So 2d 971, 973-974 (Miss, 2002), quoting Clark v State ex rel Mississippi State Med Ass’n, 381 So 2d 1046, 1048 (Miss, 1980).
Hence, American jurisdictions overwhelming adhere to the historic principle that statutes should be construed to avoid absurd results even if it means departing from a literal interpretation. This fact certainly calls into question the recent jurisprudence of the Michigan Supreme Court that departs from the state’s decades-long position in the mainstream of American jurisprudence on this matter.
A CRITIQUE OF JUSTICE SCALIA’S “TEXTUALISM”
A rigidly literalist approach that applies the plain language of a statute is drastically at odds with the approach that the United States Supreme Court employs in interpreting federal statutes.
It appears that the cause of the change in perspective by this Court is rooted in the personal views of Associate Justice Antonin Sealia of the United States Supreme Court. In Mclntire, the Michigan Supreme Court adopted as its own the Court of Appeals dissent in that case written by a Michigan Supreme Court justice while he was a member of that Court. In doing so, the Supreme Court rejected the earlier statement of the Court in Salas v Celements, supra at 109, that “departure from the literal construction of a statute is justified when such construction would produce an absurd and unjust result and would be clearly inconsistent with the purposes and polices of the act in question.” See McIntire, supra at 156 n 2.
The stated rationale for rejecting Salas was the majority’s agreement with Justice Scalia’s disdainful treatment of the rule as an attempt “ ‘to divine unexpressed and nontextual legislative intent....’” Id., citing Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997), p 21. The Court quoted Justice Scalia as opining that such attempts were “ ‘ “nothing but an invitation to judicial lawmaking.” ’ ” Mclntire, supra at 156 n 2. But the Court offered no explanation why the personal views of Justice Scalia should have prevailed over established Michigan jurisprudence with regard to construing a statute to avoid an absurd result. Neither was consideration given to the principle of stare decisis, which is respect for established precedent.
A brief review of Justice Scalia’s book reveals that his views are marked by internal inconsistencies. Justice Scalia’s main thesis with regard to statutory construction is that “[t]he text is the law, and it is the text that must be observed.” Scalia, supra at 22. He asserts that what the legislature meant as opposed to what it actually stated in the language of a statute is immаterial. Id. at 22-23. However, Justice Scalia acknowledges that one of the “sound principles of interpretation” is the interpretative doctrine of lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue) or “scrivener’s error,” where from the very face of the statute “it is clear to the reader that a mistake of expression (rather than of legislative wisdom) has been made.” Id. at 20.
As an example, Justice Scalia refers to a statute stating “defendant” when only “criminal defendant” makes sense. Id. I agree that the scrivener’s error canon of construction is an appropriate tool in determining legislative intent. But intellectual honesty requires an acknowledgement that it involves a departure from the actual language used by the Legislature or by Congress.
In a similar vein, Justice Scalia defends the use of traditional canons of construction that he states are often associated with textualism, including the canons expressio unius est exclusio alterius (expression of one thing implies exclusion of others) and ejusdem generis (limiting general
However, it must be acknowledged that they are not typically required by the statutory text itself. Rather, it may be fairly understood that the Legislature expects and intends the judiciary to employ well-established canons of construction in construing statutes. Thus, it cannot reasonably be concluded that using the canons of construction accords with a rigid adherence to applying the text of a law without regard to actual legislative intent.
These contradictions in Justice Scalia’s judicial philosophy reflect an internal inconsistency seemingly endemic to rigid textualism. As a thoughtful commentator has stated:
While textualists generally avoid legislative history, they freely consult assorted dictionaries, make use of various linguistic arguments without benefit of linguistic study, and selectively employ canons of statutory interpretation in their textual analyses. The advocates of plain meaning textualism do so without the benefit of any principled methodology justifying these extra-statutory tools. [Cavanaugh, Order in multiplicity: Aristotle on text, context, and the rule of law, 79 NC L R 577, 595-596 (2001).]
Justice Scalia also acknowledges that the principle that a judge’s objective in interpreting a statute is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature “goes back at least as far as Blackstone.” Scalia, supra at 16 n 15, citing 1 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 59-62, 91 (1765). Hence, the principle that courts may depart from a literal interpretation of a statute to effect legislative intent was a recognized facet of the law before our nation was founded.
Accordingly, departure from this historic principle is a remarkably activist position. Indeed, as one commentator has noted, Justice Scalia’s views on statutory construction expressed in A Matter of Interpretation are extreme. Justice Scalia compares judges who use traditional guides to statutory construction to ascertain legislative intent (other than a rigid adherence to the “plain language” of the statute) to the despotic Roman Emperor Nero.
In essence, Justice Scalia and his adherents place their idiosyncratic views on statutory construction above adherence to traditional norms of American jurisprudence. Of course, many aspects of the law must develop over time. Accordingly, it is appropriate occasionally, for example, for courts to alter common-law principles in light of new social realities. However, this is worlds apart from abolishing a bedrock principle of statutory construction such as
It is also worthy to note, as does Justice MARKMAN, that Justice Scalia himself has at certain times embraced the absurd results rule. See K mart Corp v Cartier, Inc,
APPLICATION OF THE ABSURD RESULTS RULE TO THIS CASE
I now return to the case on appeal. The minority saving provision is found in MCL 600.5851(1) of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA). It provides that a person is entitled to defer bringing an action if the person was under 18 years of age or insane at the time the claim accrued. The person, or someone making a claim for the person, has one year after the disability is removed to bring the action, even if the statutory period of limitations has run. The obvious intent of this section of the RJA is to provide minors and the insane with time to bring a cause of action once they are legally capable of bringing it.
MCL 500.3145(1) is the no-fault act’s statute of limitations and tolling provision.
As this Court has stated on numerous occasions, a result is absurd where it is clearly inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the act in question. Salas, supra at 109. See Attorney General v Detroit U R Co,
For example, assume a nine-year-old boy was injured in an automobile accident and needed seven years to recover. If he brought suit the day he turned 18 and prevailed, he would recover nothing, because he recovered from the accident two years before. Had the Legislature actually intended to treat this person in this way, it would have made it clear. No reasonable legislator would expect the Court to assume such a perverse intent.
Justice MARKMAN suggests that there is no absurd result here because there are “reasonable” reasons why a legislator might have wanted the outcome provided by the majority. The reader can judge for him- or herself whether a legislator would have embraced any of the imagined reasons Justice MARKMAN and Chief Justice Taylor offer.
CONCLUSION
The result that the majority reaches in this case is absurd. It is inconceivable that the Legislature intended to create a hollow cause of action for some of our most helpless and powerless citizens.
I believе that the Court should reject Mclntire’s treatment of the absurd results rule. We should reinstate the rule in Michigan and apply it in this case. The idea that the rule is outside of this Court’s constitutional authority is indefensible. Throughout all our various constitutions, the people of this state have given this Court its power knowing that, included in it, is the ability to construe statutes to avoid absurd results.
The spirit of the law should control. The absurd results rule should be applied to this case. Since it has not been applied, the result is unjust, absurd, and manifestly contrary to public policy.
The Court recognized that an absurd result would he caused by a literal interpretation of the act. It indicated that if the act were read literally, a state law against murder might not be able to be assimilated under the act. This could occur because of the existence of a federal law against assault. Id. at 161.
See People v Schoenberg,
See Attorney General v Detroit U R Co,
See Garwols v Bankers Trust Co,
See Webster v Rotary Electric Steel Co,
See State Hwy Comm’r v Detroit City Controller,
See People v Bailey,
See Franges v Gen Motors Corp,
See Michigan Humane Society v Natural Resources Comm,
See Karpinski v St John Hosp-Macomb Ctr Corp,
Recently in Costa v Community Emergency Med Services, Inc,
See Ex parte Watley, 708 So 2d 890, 893 (Ala, 1997), quoting Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction (5th ed), § 45.11, p 61 (stating that it is “ ‘fundamental’ ” that “ ‘departure from the literal construction of a statute is justified when such a construction would produce an absurd and unjust result and would clearly be inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the act in question’ ”).
See Brooks Range Exploration Co, Inc v Gordon,
See Madden v Aldrich,
See In re JW, 29 Cal 4th 200, 210; 126 Cal Rptr 2d 897;
See Colorado Dep’t of Corrections v Nieto,
See Director of Revenue v CNA Holdings, Inc,
See Joshua v Gainesville, 768 So 2d 432, 435 (Pla, 2000), quoting Las Olas Tower Co v Fort Lauderdale, 742 So 2d 308, 312 (Fla Dist App, 1999) (stating that a rule of statutory construction is that “ ‘a literal interpretation need not be given the language used when to do so would lead to an unreasonable conclusion or defeat legislative intent or result in a manifest incongruity’ ”).
See State v Guillermo,
See Driver v SI Corp,
See In re DF, 208 Ill 2d 223, 230;
See State v Duggan,
See Metro Riverboat Assoc, Inc v Louisiana Gaming Control Bd, 797 So 2d 656, 662 (La, 2001) (construing statute “to avoid the potential constitutional questions raised by a literal interpretation” and “to avoid the absurd results that would result from such a reading”).
See Guiggey v Great Northern Paper, Inc,
See Commonwealth v Wallace, 431 Mass 705, 708;
See Mutual Service Cas Ins Co v League of Minnesota Cities Ins Trust,
See Lewis v Gibbons,
See Hiett v Missoula Co Pub Schools,
See Premium Farms v Holt Co, 263 Neb 415, 423-424;
See Pellegrini v State, 117 Nev 860, 873-874;
See Simpson v Young, 153 NH 471, 479;
See Hubbard v Reed, 168 NJ 387, 392;
See State v Davis,
See Desiderio v Ochs,
See Frye Regional Med Ctr, Inc v Hunt, 350 NC 39, 45;
See Shiek v North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau,
See Hubbard v Canton City School Bd of Ed, 97 Ohio St 3d 451, 453;
See Bishop v Takata Corp,
See Park v Ford Motor Co,
See Hodges v Rainey, 341 SC 79, 91;
See Slama v Landmann Jungman Hosp,
See Heirs of Ellis v Estate of Ellis,
See Helena Chemical Co v Wilkins,
See Jackson v Mateus,
See Town of Killington v State, 172 Vt 182, 189;
See Shelor Motor Co Inc v Miller, 261 Va 473, 479;
See Fraternal Order of Eagles v Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 148 Wash 2d 224, 239;
See Taylor-Hurley v Mingo Co Bd of Ed, 209 W Va 780, 787;
See Hamilton v Hamilton,
See Abeyta v State,
This distinction between federal case law and currently prevailing Michigan case law regarding statutory construction is important for Michigan courts at all levels to hear in mind. Holdings of the Michigan Supreme Court require lower Michigan courts to generally adhere to a rigidly literal application of the language of Michigan statutes even if this produces absurd results. However, there are decisions of the United States Supreme Court indicating that it is appropriate to depart from a literal interpretation to avoid absurd results or to further congressional intent. It is axiomatic that these decisions apply when Michigan courts are called on to interpret federal statutes, as sometimes happens.
I realize that I signed the opinion in Mclntire. I have since recognized my mistake and have rejected the views on statutory construction expressed in that opinion. See Halloran v Bahn,
See Cavanaugh, supra at 593 n 50 (referring to the relevant language in Scalia’s hook and noting that “[i]t is important to recognize that for Justice Scalia there appears no distinction between interpretation by judges (elected or not) and the edicts of tyrants”). In the referenced portion of Justice Scalia’s work, he refers to judicial construction of statutes informed by concern for actual legislative intent as “one step worse than the trick the Emperor Nero was said to engage in: posting edicts high up on the pillars, so that they could not easily be read.” Scalia, supra at 17. Of course, this extreme position does not meaningfully acknowledge that judicial construction of a statute is typically concerned with the details of its application. It differs greatly from imposing an edict in an area in which a citizen would have no reasonable basis for expecting a court decision. Also, constitutional protections can prevent statutes from being interpreted or applied in a way that imposes unforeseen harms on parties.
Section 3145(1) of the no-fault act provides:
An action for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits payable under this chapter for accidental bodily injury may not be commenced later than 1 year after the date of the accident causing the injury unless written notice of injury as provided herein has been given to the insurer within 1 year after the accident or unless the insurer has previously made a payment of personal protection insurance benefits for the injury. If the notice has been given or a payment has been made, the action may be commenced at any time within 1 year after the most recent allowable expense, work loss or survivor’s loss has been incurred. However, the claimant may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced. [Emphasis added.]
I do not advance here a personal policy judgment, as Justice Markman insists. The saving clause was a policy judgment of the Legislature. I do not, as he asserts, define an “absurd result” as one that is “imperfect or flawed” or “less ‘consistent’ and less ‘effective’ than it could have been.” Ante at 85. My definition of “absurd result” is one given by this Court.
What legislator would find it reasonable to reduce the cost of insurance by leaving children and the insane with little or no recovery for their injuries? It is quite unthinkable that a legislator would intentionally vote for a bill that did that.