*1 TRANSPORT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v INITIAL INC April 17, 2007, July Docket No. 272560. Submitted at Detroit. Decided 26, 2007, appeal sought. at 9:00 a.m. Leave to Michigan Department Transportation brought The of an action in Wayne against Inc., Transport, Employers the Court Circuit Initial Casualty Company, Casualty Company, Mutual Great West and Leasing Company, seeking approximately Kirk National $3.5 mil- damage freeway overpass. lion for to a The occurred when gasoline exploded tanker after it detached from a semi-tractor by Transport operated by that was owned Initial and one of its employees. Mutual, Employees Transport’s Initial in- no-fault surer, $57,957.28 payments totaling made to environmental cleanup companies engaged by plaintiff the to the offered plaintiff up million, to $1 the insurance limit act, upon satisfactory proof under its and the no-fault atof property damage least $1 million and the of a execution release liability part Employers on Transport. further the and Initial court, Macdonald, J., granted summary The Kathleen I. disposi- defendants, ruling tion plaintiffs recovery for the property protection limited to million under the 500.3121(5) by benefit maximum set MCL of the no-fault 480.11a(l)(b) plaintiffs notwithstanding argument that MCL Safety (MCSA), adopted of the Motor Carrier Act which certain safety regulations, requires federal motor carrier an additional transporters million in financial gasoline. of hazardous materials such as The court also denied plaintiff percent year motion of 12 interest under MCL 500.2006 the Uniform Trade Act Practices from days satisfactory proof date 60 after of loss was received $942,042.72 payable for the it conceded was insurance benefits under policy. plaintiff appealed. The Appeals
The Court of held: by granting summary disposition 1. The trial court erred imposes potential defendants. in addition imposed by carrying the no-fault act motor carriers Legislature’s adoption language hazardous materials. The stat- v Initial Trans incentives,” 387.1, ing purpose of “to create additional CFR requirements exert regulatory are intended to suggests legislation by preexisting pressure that exerted over above encourage “operate in a safe their vehicles carriers overlay act to the no-fault read as an The MCSAmust be manner.” *2 by involving transport materials the of hazardous in situations distinguishes light CFR in of the fact that 49 387.9 motor carriers setting cargo cargo in and nonhazardous between hazardous the fact that carriers and limits for motor cargo. Finally, inas- not address hazardous no-fault act does the responsibility” “the as as defines “financial much CFR 387.5 bonds) surety policies (e.g., suffi- insurance financial reserves covering subpart satisfy set in the amounts forth cient policies liability,” must public from such insurance benefits parties injured by by carriers. recoverable plaintiffs by denying for the motion 2. The trial court erred 2006(4) provided penalty under MCL500.2006. Section interest third-party is part claimant entitled in that a tort satisfactory year days percent a from a date 60 after interest of 12 if, things, by among a proof of is hable insurer other loss received case, reasonably dispute. the the in In this at time the claim is not plaintiff Employers requiring entered an order the trial court mutually agreeable requiring Employers a release and to execute release, $974,042.72 upon pay plaintiff a the execution of the plaintiff no to the under the no-fault was amount owed any authority longer dispute. in The defendants have not cited position paying penalty support can avoid of their that an insurer payment by requiring on a a release as condition of interest remand, trial must order claim. On the court days satisfactory proof percent date of loss interest from a after was received. proceedings. for further Reversed and remanded C.J., dissenting concurring part part, Whitbeck, by denying plaintiffs agreed motion that the trial court erred statutory penalty Employers’ for failure uncondi- for interest tionally property no-fault $1 tender the balance of the million in re- protection benefits and that the case should be However, Judge interest. Chief manded for an award such disagreed majority’s conclusion that the with Whitbeck separate $1 provides property benefits and above regulatory by is a act set the no-fault act. The MCSA million limit responsibil- simply of financial sets forth minimum amounts ity imposes a for for carriers and civil certain motor requirements. comply The MCSA those minimum failure to with Opinion Court remedy party against private does create a for third remedy insured or an insurer. The no-fault act is the exclusive damage property available to sustained this recovery case. trial court’s decision that subject to the million limit set the no-fault act should be affirmed. No-Fault—Property
Insurance — Protection Carriers Insurance —Motor — — Safety Responsibility. Motor Carrier Act Financial Safety requires The Motor Carrier Act motor carrier that trans- ports hazardous materials to maintain minimum of million or responsibility, depending type $5 million in financial on the cargo; property damage, protection provided hazardous Safety the Motor Carrier Act is over and above that which is provided under the set which a limit of million in (MCL [b]; la[l] insurance benefits 480.1 500.3121[5]). Cox, General, A. Attorney Casey, Michael L. Thomas General, Isom, Solicitor Leone, and Patrick F. Vincent J. Gubkin, General, and Joshua W. Attorneys Assistant for the Department Transportation. *3 Leavitt, & (by Leavitt),
Sullivan PC. Michael J. for Transport, Initial Inc. Smith,
Hopkins, Curran, Curran & (by George PC. F. III), for Employees Casualty Mutual Company. WHITBECK, C.J.,
Before: and MURPHY and JJ. COOPER, COOPER, J. In this a regarding case claim for property benefits, protection plaintiff appeals right as of from the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in defendants,1 of Transport, (Initial), favor Initial Inc. Casualty Company Leasing Defendants Great West and Kirk National Company prejudice proceed were dismissed with from the lower court ings parties appeal. Accordingly, and to the instant we will refer Transport, Inc., Employers Company, to Initial and Mutual Insurance collectively,as “defendants.” of Trans v Initial Company (Employers). Casualty Mutual Employers and proceedings. and remand further We reverse Initial, 6, a semi-tractor owned On October Initial, by policy and a employee covered driven struck a by Employers, no-fault insurance issued entrance ramp on the left side cement barrier The semi- 1-75 to eastbound 1-94. from northbound towing cargo containing tank trailer tractor was semi-tractor, crossed detached from the gasoline, which wall, fell roadway and onto the below.2 over the barrier exploded, causing severely fire that tanker trailer ad- destroyed parts overpass and damaged approxi- Plaintiffs costs were joining repair structures. million, cleanup, including environmental mately $3.5 after the acci- immediately control in the area traffic dent, overpass having adjoining and the cost accident, At rebuilt. the time of Initial’s structures Em- liability with general commercial primary million prop- for the semi-tractor included a ployers $1 had erty separate limit. Initial also excess protection additional million limit. liability policy with an than million in pay declined to more benefits, reasoning it was not because, no-fault required to more under the damages could Initial’s Plaintiff complaint not exceed million. filed policy, limit assert- higher reach the under the umbrella claims, adoption in Motor ing, among other that the regulations transpor- Safety Carrier Act federal 480.11, created an materials, of hazardous tation limitation in the act. exception damages summary and the disposition, Defendants moved for granted trial the motion. court *4 accident, his death is not died in the but driver the semi-tractor The subject proceedings. of these 276 argues appeal Plaintiff first that the trial court concluding Safety erred in Motor Carrier Act (MCSA), MCL 480.11 et seq., provide does not property separate benefits that are and distinct from million insurance benefit limit set forth no-fault under the act. Plaintiff contends that because the requires haz- transporter ardous materials to obtain additional security, is entitled to recover property primary exceeds no-fault policy limit. presents This claim impression issue first this Court. Because we find that the MCSA would be ren- dered did meaningless provide protection it over act, agree above allowed the no-fault we plaintiff. with
This
de
Court reviews
issues of statutory
novo
inter-
pretation.
Co,
Amerisure Ins Co v Auto-Owners Ins
(2004).
10, 14;
Mich App
(1) title 49 adopts following provisions of This state regulations, office of on file with the of the code federal [,] secretary except this act: where modified state (a) regulations, being 49 CFR materials Hazardous transportation through except 180 parts 100 exception from the agricultural products for which an subchap- C 49 application subchapter of CFR CFR 49 173.5, H, 172, is under 49 CFR part provided is ters G compli- transportation is specifically authorized this act and other state law. ance with (b) being parts 49 safety regulations, CFR Motor carrier 382, 385, 373, 375, 376, 379, 40, 356, 365, 368, through 371 [excep- 393, through except 387, through 399 395 this .... proceeding] not relevant to tions sections, "The 387.1, adopted states: 49 CFR one is to create additional regulations of these purpose operate carriers to maintain and to motor incentives 500.3121(5) “property protection insurance ben arising tangible from paid to all efits trader $1,000,000.00.” section effective This became 1 accident shall not exceed 1993, 28, 1973; although December amended effective March did not alter this text. amendment
their vehicles in safe manner and to assure that motor appropriate carriers maintain an level of financial re- sponsibility operated for motor on public high- vehicles ways.” Under the regulations, “[n]o motor carrier shall operate motor vehicle until the motor carrier has obtained and has in effect levels 387.7(a). 49 CFR responsibility....” A pri- vate transporter material, hazardous such as oil gasoline, required to maintain a minimum of $1 *6 million in financial responsibility; substances, for other the required may as high million. 49 $5 CFR 387.9. A violation of punishable the rules is aby “civil $11,000 no more than for each viola- tion.” 49 CFR 387.17.
To plaintiffs issue, resolve first this Court must interpret whether the Legislature, by adopting the specifically 480.11a, intended an ex- ception million on $1 limit insurance benefits contained in the no-fault act. We find 500.3121(5) that MCL Michigan act, MCL 500.3101 et is seq., unambiguous, limiting payment of property protection insurance benefits to $1 million one policy tangible prop- erty arising from a single However, accident. we also find that the MCSA equally unambiguous is in mandat- ing that motor carriers obtain and have in effect mini- mum levels of responsibility financial operating before vehicles carrying certain hazardous materials. MCL 480.11a(l)(b); 49 387.7(a); CFR 49 CFR 387.9.
The issue we must address here is what happens
when the no-fault act is
in conjunction
read
with the
hand,
MCSA. On one
no more than
million can be
$1
paid out in property protection insurance benefits un-
der
the no-fault
yet the MCSA demands minimum
coverage
million,
of million or
depend-
$1
$5
Dep’t of
Trans v Initial
being
material
These
ing
transported.
on the hazardous
statutes,
unambiguous,
independently,
read
when
analyzed together.
ambiguity when
but create
its
language, unambiguous
plain
Statutory
inter-
ambiguous through its
face, may be rendered
People
to other statutes.
relationship
with and
action
(1998);
Valentin,
1, 6;
People
v
Mich
Where injudicial to ascertain necessary engage construction Complaint, In re MCI Telecom legislative intent. (1999). 396, 411; Two statutes 596 NW2d a common subject or share relate to the same and are to be read pari are in materia purpose law, one even where the statutes harmony together as each other and are enacted no reference to make Schuster, 456 Mich dates. State Treasurer v different (1998). 417; 572 NW2d Here, interpretation we find that the correct Legislature two acts intended MCL 500.3121(5) apply vehicles, crafted, to all but later MCSA, an through exception enactment of the with respect to vehicles hauling hazardous materials. This reading harmonious in both maintaining results acts their core meaning and the necessary forcefulness fulfill their purposes. following reasons, For the three we hold that the later-in-time MCSA imposes potential liability in imposed by addition to that the no-fault act on motor carriers carrying materials, hazardous creat- ing an to the exception cap damage.
First, the legislature’s state adoption of the purpose language 387.1, of 49 CFR “to create additional incen- tives,” suggests that the requirements that follow are intended to exert pressure over and above that exerted by preexisting legislation to encourage carriers to “operate their vehicles a safe manner.” To hold otherwise would fail afford the words “additional” and “incentives” plain their and common meanings.
Second, provisions of 49 CFR 387.9 distinguish between nonhazardous hazardous set property, and the minimum financial responsibility required to en- gage transportation types the two cargo at appreciably $750,000 different levels: for nonhazardous materials; million or million for different types hazardous materials. We must therefore treat the trans- port of hazardous property involving greater risk, meriting additional property protection. Noting that the no-fault act does not cargo address any hazardous way, and observing Legislature’s clear intent set responsibility guidelines where hazardous cargo is transported, we conclude that the MCSA must overlay read as an to the no-fault act. *8 Trans v Initial requires motor carriers to the MCSA Third, because responsibility, minimum levels of financial maintain surety (e.g., policiesor insurance “the financial reserves bonds) satisfy in forth amounts set sufficient liability,” covering public subpart are bound to we this policies presume insurance that benefits from these by by parties injured those motor must be recoverable 49 CFR 387.5. carriers. MCSA is determined that
The trial court colleague only, dissenting regulatory relies on and our reaching regulatory his nature of act recognize Although the MCSA we conclusion. remedy expressly provide private a for a does not against party Michi insurer, an or third insured implied recently gan Supreme affirmed Court may cognizable determine as well: “To remedies be may bring a for a a cause action whether remedy, specific this Court ‘must determine whether Legislature] [the cause of to create such a intended ” City v Haven Buren Co Bd action.’ South Van 518, 528-529; Comm’rs, 478 Mich NW2d (2007) (citation omitted). incorporated 387.11, into the
We note that 49 CFR 480.11a(l)(b), requires MCSA, insurers who fur- necessary coverage legally to be nish the “willing designate person upon authorized to be authority any process, or under the whom issued may jurisdiction having subject matter, court brought any equity proceeding law at or served any operates.” carrier This State which against language clearly contemplates insurers actions that the mandated benefits. We conclude to recover “any “any proceeding language at law court” and remedy broad equity” implies party injured or insured. op Opinion the Court “[wjhere addition, right duty
In creates a statute *9 law, provided not found the common the remedies they the are statute exclusive unless inad- plainly equate or where act no of adequate the means provisions.” Fiutowski, enforcement of its Kowalski v 156, App 162; (2001); 502 NW2d see also (On Aviation, Gen Inc v Capital Region Airport Auth Remand), 715; Mich App NW2d (1997). Here, implied action, an private absent cause of the remedies the provided by MCSA are both inad- equate and in any meaningful way. unenforceable
A duty imposed new was under the MCSA on carriers of In light hazardous materials. duty, civil 387.17, penalties, infractions, 49 CFR or civil 480.17(1), are inadequate A remedies. carrier is compliance with the act once the minimum is insurance penalties but procured, specified the in the statute do not address what happens insurer declines to actually amounts contained in the policy, or million as mandated However, MCSA. only purpose requiring reasonable insurance is coverage risk, to effectuate so although govern- ment retains a cause of action in the event of non- compliance, the mere surely fact that a motor carrier is in compliance does not negate any possibility actually using the required coverage. It injured follows parties ought to able damage be to recover property required under the policies. To rule otherwise would counteract entire purpose setting higher mini- mum limits for transporters carrying hazardous mate- rials.
While we acknowledge that the MCSA’s minimum responsibility limits apparently cover both damage as as property well bodily injury, considering that the act also includes minimum limit of million v Initial of Trans limits, it would indeed minimum limits are that the only Legislature conclude that unreasonable to be most, to ever allocated million, at the intended $1 an accident. This is arising out of property prop- for extensive given potential true especially cleanup, hap- including environmental erty damage, involves a vehicle trans- here, an accident where pened materials. hazardous porting is ensure that automobile
A
the no-fault act
goal of
fault
regard to
com-
receive without
accident victims
the form of
injuries
their
pensation
v
Ins Exch Farm
Farmers
insurance benefits.
106,118;
Michigan,
Ins Co
Bureau Gen
(2006).
MCSA, in part,
goal
This Court reviews novo summary dispo- motion denying party’s erred in a pursuant MCL of a claim for interest sition App Ins, v Angott Group App 500.2006. Chubb 270 Mich See (2006). 465, 474-475; 717 The determination NW2d statutory which provision applies given to a action is legal purely question by statutory to be resolved interpretation and reviewed Court de novo. this Co, 619; v Ins Yaldo North Pointe (1996). NW2d 657
Michigan’s Act, Uniform Trade Practices 500.2006, part: in relevant
(1) insured, person timely A pay must on a its an basis to entity directly or individual entitled to benefits under its insurance, party insured’s contract or a third tort provided claimant the policy, benefits under the terms of its or, alternative, insured, person pay in the must its entity directly or individual entitled to benefits under its insurance, insured’s contract party or a third tort interest, claimant provided (4), 12% in subsection on paid timely claims on pay basis. Failure on claims timely provided basis or to interest claims as (4) practice subsection is an unfair trade unless claim is reasonably in dispute. (4) If paid timely benefits are not aon basis benefits
paid
simple
shall bear
days
from a
interest
date
after
satisfactory proof
of loss was received
the insurer at
annum,
per
rate of
12%
the claimant is the insured or an
entity directly
individual
entitled
benefits under the
insured’s contract of
If
insurance.
the claimant is a third
party
claimant,
tort
then the
paid
benefits
shall bear
days
satisfactory
interest
proof
from date 60
after
of loss
*11
by
was received
the insurer
per
at the rate of 12% annum
if the
reasonably
the insurer for the claim not
is
dispute,
in
payment
insurer has refused
in bad faith
and the bad faith
was determined
a court
law.
“ ‘The
of the
purpose
penalty interest
statute is to
penalize
dilatory
insurers for
in
practices
settling meri-
331
of Trans v Initial
in
delay
claims,
plaintiff
not to
a
compensate
torious
ultimately
is
recovering benefits to which
”
479,
at
Angott,
to be
supra
determined
entitled.’
Ins
v American Motorists
quoting
Corp
Arco Industries
(On
Remand,
Mich App
Rehearing),
Co
On
Second
(1998);
v
143,
see
McCahill
148;
resolution without interest. supra (emphasis original).] at Before filed plaintiff complaint present its the case, Employers agreed to tender the million limit to (1) under the on plaintiff primary policy two conditions: plaintiff satisfactory that supply proof the (2) overpass the at was least million and plaintiff sign complete release of liability for both Employers and Initial. Plaintiff did not respond Employers’ request and filed its complaint Wayne the Circuit approximately Court nine months later. lower court record reveals that did not submit proof of the amount of damage done to the and overpass adjoining structures before it filed its complaint. Fur- thermore, plaintiffs complaint specifically requested payment immediate of “in excess of million in $3.5 damages.” However, at during some point proceed- ings, Employers payments totaling made $57,957.28 to various cleanup environmental on companies behalf of plaintiff, leaving a remaining $942,042.72. balance of argued Plaintiff in its first motion for summary dispo- that, sition because the primary policy and addi- tional umbrella were in effect on the date accident and because each of the policies both covered trailer, the semi-tractor and the liable was for the million in damages under each the policies for each of the vehicles. theAt first hearing parties’ summary motions for disposition, the trial court concluded plaintiffs no-fault act was sole of recovery However, avenue for property damage. requested trial court parties that the address whether 6, 2003, the October accident could be classified as a single- 2006, 21, multi-vehicle accident. On June trial court entered an “plaintiff order requiring [Employers] to execute a mutually agreeable Release preserving party’s rights each to appeal those decisions Trans v Initial Release that of such it, upon execution adverse remaining $942,042.72, its sum of [Employers] However, the trial policy].” primary [the balance the claim. interest on impose declined court claim, remaining portion conclude that We reasonably in dis- $942,042.72, was approximately 2006, the June court entered the trial pute when *13 in raised arguments Notwithstanding the other order. requested plaintiff summary disposition, its motion balance, noting remaining of the payment immediate response, In dispute. in amount was not was remaining balance admitted defendants upon to tender balance and offered dispute 21, 2006, As of June executing release. plaintiff pay- that no reasonably argue could not Employers The remain- policy. the primary were due under ments balance, $942,042.72, properly presented was ing Thus, beyond dispute. reasonable and was plaintiff made to that extent been] must “timely payment [have dis- interest, reasonably leaving avoid penalty appli- to later resolution without subject puted portions at 481. Ac- supra penalty Angott, cation of interest.” that the MCSA though plaintiff argued cordingly, even and that protection additional levels of provided accident as a multi-vehicle accident could be classified benefits, rise to additional giving reasonably in was not the first million of claim remaining claim of Only plaintiffs $2.5 dispute. Moreover, at time. reasonably dispute was that an in the interest statute nothing the insured’s to benefits under entity directly entitled before sign a release required contract of insurance 500.2006(1). Further, de- receiving such benefits. authority support any not cited fendants have paying penalty can avoid that an insurer position their release before to execute a party by requiring interest Opinion Whitbeck, C.J. Accordingly, of a claim. we reverse the payment portion interest, denying of the court’s order plaintiff trial and remand for determination of the amount of interest 500.2006(4). Employers due from under MCL direct We trial court to order interest at the rate of 12 from a percent per days annum date after satisfactory proof of received. loss was finally argues
Plaintiff
that it is entitled to interest
However,
under MCL 600.6013.
a review of plaintiffs
brief
appeal
plaintiff
on
reveals that
failed to properly
brief the
A party’s
issue.
failure to brief the merits of an
issue constitutes abandonment of the issue. Prince v
MacDonald,
186, 197;
237 Mich App
Reversed remanded for further proceedings con- sistent with this We do opinion. jurisdiction. not retain J.,
Murphy, concurred. WHITBECK, C.J. (concurring part dissenting in *14 I part). concur with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred by denying the Michigan Department (MDOT) of Transportation’s motion for statutory inter- est based Employers on Mutual Insurance Company’s (Employers) failure unconditionally tender the $1 million under Initial Transport, (Initial), Inc.’s no-fault insurance policy.
I however, separately, write I disagree because with the majority’s conclusion that the Motor Carrier Safety (MCSA), Act MCL et seq., provides 480.11 property protection benefits and separate above the $1 million limit set the by Michigan act, no-fault MCL 500.3101 et I seq. regulatory believe MCSA is a act that (1) simply sets forth minimum amounts of financial of Trans v Initial Opinion Whitbeck, C.J. (2) imposes and motor carriers for certain with those comply the failure to a civil majority’s disagree I with requirements. remedy for private creates a that the MCSA conclusion Indeed, or an insurer. an insured party against a third remedy provided that no such majority concedes hold that I would statutory in that scheme. anywhere remedy available is the exclusive the no-fault act in this case. damage sustained property MDOT for the the interest on Therefore, I would reverse remand issue. issue, affirm on benefits-limit but disputes out, party neither points majority As the done to damage was million approximately $3.5 2003, accident. of the October as result overpass that, because dispute do not Further, parties one under trailer are insured and the semi-tractor occurred, only one accident of insurance policy mil- more than collecting from precluded MDOT is the no-fault which under lion from follows: part pertinent of the benefits consist Property protection insurance replacement costs less repair costs or of reasonable lesser and, of loss of use. applicable, the value depreciation paid However, property protection insurance benefits tangible property arising damage to all from $1,000,000.00.[1] exceed accident shall not 3121(5) act of the no-fault § language, By plain its arising limits expressly million. accident to $1 a motor vehicle out of MDOT’s disputing is whether parties What is limited to the recovery allowable entire benefits cap recovery additional may MDOT obtain or whether added). 500.3121(5) (emphasis *15 App 276 Mich Opinion by Whitbeck, C.J. MDOT the MCSA. advocates latter and the MCSA an additional layer contends that separate benefits from distinct insurance benefit limit set forth under the no-fault act. MDOT Specifically, argues that because MCL 480.11a requires transporter hazardous materials to obtain certain minimum levels security, financial it is entitled to recover for damages in an amount that exceeds the million no-fault limit. I disagree. agree I do not the Legislature, by MCSA, adopting the intended to impose additional liability over and above the million limit on property protection insurance benefits contained the no-fault act. of the purpose MCSA is described its title
follows: promote safety highways
An upon open act to to the public by regulating operation vehicles; of certain provide regulation by consistent agen- these areas state government;... cies and local units of to establish certain shippers offering violations of certain materials for trans- portation; provide penalties [and] ... for the violation of .[2] this act...
To
this
purpose,
enacting
MCSA,
effectuate
Michigan
adopted
reference
portions
the federal
Safety
Motor Carrier
Act and the federal motor carrier
safety regulations. The purpose of the federal motor
carrier safety regulations
prescribe
is to
“the minimum
levels of
responsibility required
to be main
tained
motor carriers of property operating motor
seq.
binding
Title of
authority
MCL 480.11 et
A title is not
construing
recognized
this
but
Court has
that a title can be useful
interpreting statutory purpose
scope. King
v Ford Motor Credit
Co,
(2003).
311-312;
49 CFR regulations adopted by safety federal motor carrier 387.7(a), carrier “[n]o 49 motor Under CFR MCSA. carrier has a motor until motor operate shall vehicle of has in the minimum levels obtained and effect 387.9(3) requires pri- CFR responsibility.” financial or material, of such as oil transporters vate hazardous minimum of million gasoline, to maintain a $1 A of rules violation the federal responsibility.5 financial of more than punishable by is “civil no Further, $11,000 “any person, for each violation.”6 permits or driver, or motor carrier . . . who violates ... any violate or a rule person [the MCSA] or requires MCSA], promulgated responsible [the fine of may infraction and be ordered to state civil not more than for each violation.”7 $250.00 forth 49 CFR 387.9 sets argues
MDOT that because on the responsibility minimum levels financial based carrier, by a type transported of material motor injured party to an additional level third has access words, argues Legis- In MDOT security. other lature, by adopting responsibility the federal financial
4 49 CFR 387.1. requires transporter petroleum liquefied also 49 CFR 387.9 responsibility. a minimum financial maintain however, presented implications requirement, this are not minion panel. before this resolution 387.17. 49 CFR 480.17(1). Opinion by Whitbeck, C.J.
requirements,
intended an
to the million
exception
limit
benefits set forth in
argument unpersuasive.
no-fault act. I find this
MCSA
Although the
sets forth
amounts
carriers,
financial
certain
create any private
does not
cause of action.
Further,
MCSA,
no
any
there is
indication in the
or in
other statute,
Michigan’s adoption
of the federal
for certain motor
responsibility requirements
carriers creates additional
or
coverage
exposure
beyond the
of the no-fault act.
requirements
Nowhere
does
MCSA the no-fault act state that
the $1
million financial responsibility requirement
is recover-
*17
able
in
property protection insurance
addition
the
no-fault act’s
million property damage limitation.
Moreover, MCSA
provide any
the
does not
for
method
asserting
damages.
stated,
cause
action for
As
only “liability”
may
that
under
imposed
a fine or a
for
comply
with
failing
the federal
regulations
I
adopted
conclude, therefore,
the MCSA.
that
the Legislature
exclusively
has
reserved to the
rights
act the
parties
third
for
recover
tangible property.
requires
no-fault act
regis
that
owner or
trant of a motor vehicle maintain benefits for property
goal
insurance.8 The
no-fault act is to
ensure that automobile accident victims receive com
pensation
injuries
for their
form
of property
protection insurance benefits
regard
without
to fault.9
Therefore, certain minimum levels of
coverage
prerequisite
mandated as a
for
registration
automobile
8
500.3101(1).
MCL
9
Ass’n,
Turner v Auto Club Ins
22, 36-37;
681
NW2d
(1995);
Michigan,
Exch v
Farmers Ins
Farm Bureau
Ins Co
Gen
(2006).
118;
than posed by transport that of nonhazardous imposition merits materials. This additional Therefore, protection. levels minimum that higher requires coverage minimum levels of for transporting merely vehicles hazardous materials rec- ognizes likely such vehicles are more to cause significant damage may drastically exceed Michi- gan’s generally applicable coverage. levels
Further, I significant it find the MCSA’s $1 million financial responsibility requirement is intended to cover the motor carrier property damage, as well bodily injuries,13 while the $1 million no-fault act limit is aimed specifically property damage at alone. Thus, the goals of the two notably goal acts differ. The of the MCSA is to forth set minimum levels of financial responsibility required by to be maintained motor car- all riers for types damage, including both bodily injury, to ensure that sufficient amounts of insurance will be available cover poten- tially catastrophic Conversely, accidents. the no-fault 500.3121(5) act MCL simply provides that an insurer is responsible paying no more than million to $1 3121(5) damage. Thus, § cover property forth sets maximum recovery available law for property damage. differently, Stated the MCSA requires a million minimum level of financial responsibility to potential cover all damage caused by certain motor carriers, but in the event such motor carrier causes property damage, recovery for that property damage is nevertheless limited million no-fault maxi- mum recovery allowance. case,
As can seen in this property damage alone caused involving accident a motor carrier of hazardous material can well exceed the 387.1; 49 CFR MCL 480.11a. *19 Trans v Initial Opinion C.J. Whitbeck, power limit. it the of the act But is within no-fault Court, exception an to the create not this Legislature, limit for carriers property-damage million Absent indeed deemed warranted. exception an such the financial from the Legislature, direction express read the must be within requirements only requires no-fault act. The MCSA framework have a minimum level of financial that a motor carrier suppose no There is reason responsibility. por- enacting adopting MCSA
Legislature, by intended to regulations, impliedly of the tions federal on property limits provide exception §in 3121(5) the no-fault act. set forth benefits 3121(5) plain language § of the no-fault Under million in only property the state can recover $1 for this covered under benefits one accident in the policy. coverage provided one provide property- cannot additional umbrella contrary statutory the state damage recovery to remedy limit. The no-fault act is MDOT’s sole because setting act forth the merely regulatory the MCSA is coverage necessary carrier of amount Therefore, my opinion, the trial hazardous material. for summary denied motion properly court MDOT’s defendants’ motion for sum- disposition granted does disposition provide because mary I benefits MDOT. property protection additional ben- hold that the would remedy act are MDOT’s exclusive efits of in this damage sustained payment for the case. issue, interest but
I and remand on the would reverse on the issue. affirm benefits-limit