Parks v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange

Parks v INTER-INSURANCE AUTOMOBILE PARKS v DETROIT EXCHANGE 2). (Calendar 4, 75437, Argued No. March Nos. 75438. Docket 3, 1986. Decided October Muskegon Court brought Circuit Wayne action in the an Exchange, his against Inter-Insurance the Detroit Automobile Inc., insurer, Roadway Express, his and automobile injuries seeking employer, for no-fault benefits self-insured employment in a trailer owned his in the course of suffered Michigan plaintiff subsequently employer. added The his Facility Assigned as a defendant. Department of State Graves, Jr., J., summary judg- court, granted James M. The that, finding employer, the trailer because ment for regis- required injured to be plaintiff not was was which agree- Michigan pursuant multistate to a tered in Michigan operated for less it had been ment and because plaintiff year days in which the thirty the calendar within than ownership trailer could injured, was further The court subject under the no-fault act. it to required no-fault benefits the daiie held that Mackenzie, P.J., Appeals, J. H. plaintiff. The Court of (Docket JJ., Nos. Fitzgerald, reversed Gillis 70751). employer appeals. joined by Justices opinion by Chief Justice Williams, In an Supremе held: Riley, Court Brickley, Boyle, registered in Michi- An vehicle not out-of-state thirty operated for more than gan within the state and not security year days is not in a calendar act; where an priority provisions payment of the no-fault occupant owned a vehicle an of such while References seq., seq., 340 et 2d, 28 et 20 et Automobile Insurance §§ Am Jur seq., seq., seq., 357. 348 et 351 et plans. Validity automobile of "no-fault” and construction 229. 42 ALR3d Quick under No- Index the ALR3d/4th See also the annotations fault Insurance. 426 Mich 191 employer, em- automobile insurer of the ployee pay personal protection is liable to benefits. registrants 1. Owners motor vehicles registered Michigan must maintain 3101(1) protection under act. benefits no-fault § registrants regis- Nonresident owners or of vehicles motor not may permit operate tered in the state not or such vehicles to be operated thirty days any within the state for more than in 3102(1) year security payment calendar under unless of § However, continuously may benefits is maintained. the state reciрrocal compacts regarding enter into with states other the operation in of trailers interstate commerce. case, compact applicable Under a the trailer in which plaintiff injured required registered the was not to be in Thus, Michigan. subject mandatory security it was not to the 3101(1). requirement addition, oper- of In trailer § the was not days thirty ated within the state in of excess at the time of the plaintiff’s and, thus, injury subject mandatory was not to the 3102(1). security requirements of § persons Generally, 2. in automobile must accidents provision look to their own insurers for no-fault benefits. The of employees injured by § 3114 that in owned em- vehicles their ployers employer’s should look to the insurer the vehicle for payment applies only required of benefits to to vehicles be registered Thus, Michigan. where, case, in as in this the vehicle injury required registered in which an not to occurs was be in state, general applies. the the rule case, employer self-insurer, 3. The a is not an state, insurer authorized to transact business within the provide thus it is not to applies under injury 3163. That § section to cases which ownership, operation, maintenance, arises out of the or use of a by plaintiff’s motor injury vehicle an out-of-state resident. The arose out plaintiff, Michigan of the use of the trailer a employer subjected resident. liability merely not is because it owned the trailer. Under it § would be liable only if it were insurer authorized to transact automobile liability insurance in the state. person 4. A may entitled to no-fault benefits obtain benefits Assigned Facility from the Claims under no § where personal protection applicable injury, insurance is to the no identified, only such can or the insur- identifiable inadequate ance is inability because of the financial or of one obligations. case, more insurers to fulfill their In this clear it is plaintiff’s personal protection appli- own insurance is injury, escape liability cable and his insurer cannot coverage Assigned Facility. shift its burden Reversed. joined dissenting, Justice Cavanagh, Archer, Justice employer’s

stated that where an vehicle is insured the no- injured employee’s personal fault of an automobile is personal protection liable for insurance benefits. However, insured, employer’s including where an vehicle self-insured, employer’s situations in which the pay only insurer is liable to such benefits. An need injury occupying show that the occurred while a motor vehicle registered by employer owned or to recover benefits. The vehicle is not in the state mandatory provisions. state’s no-fault Levin, dissenting, Justice stated that the term "owner or registrant vehicle” of motor as used in 3114 of the § concept qualified by "required act is not this state.” There is no basis consistent 3163 of with the act § differentiating depending on insurers whether an insured vehicle was this state. Nor is there basis to construe the act to that a self-insured responsibility under has less than an insurer or responsibility transfer of to the a self-insured an insurer. App 520; 138 Mich NW2d reversed. op the Court Injured — — — 1. Insurance No-Fault Out-of-State Vehicles Employees. registered required Michigan An out-of-state vehicle not to be in operated thirty days and not within the state for more than in year subject security payment a calendar is not to or the priority provisions act; employee the of no-fault where an is occupant while an of such a vehicle owned an employer, personal employee the automobile insurer of the is (MCL pay personal protection 500.3101[1], liable to benefits 24.13114). 500.3102[1],500.3114; 24.13101[1],24.13102[1], MSA — — — 2. Insurance No-Fault Out-of-State Vehicles Interstate Compacts Mandatory Security. — Entry by reciprocal compact a the state into with another state regarding operation the of in trailers inter- required state commerce rendered trailer which was not registered Michigan compact in under the not (MCL mandatory requirement security of the no-fault act 500.3101[1]; 24.13101[1]). MSA 426 Mich 191 Mandatory — — — 3. Insurance Vehicles No-Fault Out-of-State Security. registrants vehicles Owners or motor payment personal Michigan security maintain for must registrants benefits; protection of motor owners or nonresident operate permit may or the state not vehicles operated state more than within the for such vehicles to be security days year thirty any calendar unless (MCL 500.3101[1], continuously is maintained benefits 24.13102[1]). 500.3102[1]; 24.13101[1], MSA Facility. Assigned — — 4. No-Fault Claims Insurance may person A to no-fault benefits obtain benefits from entitled Assigned personal protection Facility where no injury, applicable is no such insurance can be insurance to identified, only protection or identifiable is, injury inability applicable to because of financial one obligations, inadequate their more insurers to fulfill (MCL 500.3172; up prescribed to the maximum benefits 24.13172). MSA Dissenting Opinion Cavanagh, Employees. — Injured — 5. Insurance No-Fault employer’s insurer of an vehicle is not insured Where pay- injured employee’s personal automobile liable an however, beneñts; personal protection insurance where ment of insured, including employer’s situations which an self-insured, employer’s liable insurer is the vehicle is 24.13114). (MCL500.3114; pay such beneñts MSA Injured Employees — — — 6. No-Fault Out-of-Statе Insurance Vehicles. only injury An need show occurred while occupying registered by employer motor vehicle owned recover from the beneñts insurer; employer’s vehicle is not subject to in the state or the state’s no-fault manda- (MCL [3]; tory provisions 500.3114[1], 24.13114[1], [3]). McCroskey, Brock, Feldman, Cochrane & P.C. (by J n Walter Brock), plaintiff. for Hipkiss William J. Law Office William J. (by Hipkiss) Detroit Automobile Inter- defendant Exchange. Insurance v Opinion of the Court Kelley, Attorney General, J.

Frank Louis Harry Caruso, General, Solicitor G. Iwasko Snyder, Attorneys and Warren R. Assistant Gen- Michigan Department eral, for defendant of State Assigned Facility. Claims VanderWeyden (by

Allaben, Massie, & Timmer VanderWeyden), counsel, A. Keith for defendant Express, Inc. Williams, C.J. The issue in this case is whether requires employee’s personal the no-fault act an employee’s insurer, self-insured em- Assigned ployer, Facility or the personal protection per- insurance benefits when a sonally occupy- insured while ing employer-owned vehicle is not registered Michigan. in question in Involved the resolution of this are 3101(1), 3102(1), 3114(1), §§ of the no-fault seq.; seq. MCL act.1 Section 500.3101 et 24.13101 et 3101(1) part, states, in "The owner registrant regis- of a motor vehicle security tered this shall state maintain payment personal protection of benefits under 3102(1) provides, . . . .” Section "A non- registrant resident owner or of a motor operate state . . shall not . days vehicle ... in this state . . . more than 30 any year continuously calendar unless he she maintains And, for the of benefits.” critically, provides, part, "Except provided 2, 3, 5, in subsections policy described in section 3101(1) applies bodily injury to accidental person policy injury named in the ... if the from arises a motor vehicle accident.” Subsections pertinent infra, sections, pp See texts of these 202. 426 Mich 191 Opinion op the Court refer, to motor vehicles trans- respectively, 2 and 5 and to neither motorcycles, porting passengers is relevant here. which 3. 3114 is subsection portion

The critical § an "who provides employee This subsection occupant an while bodily injury suffers accidental registered by of a motor vehicle owned insur- receive personal employer, shall entitled is employee ance benefits to which ” (Em- of the furnished vehicle from the insurer added.) find, however, out-of- that an phasis We registered in Mich- state vehicle not more than operated and not in this state for igan provisions is not thirty days act and that when an of the no-fault occupant while an of such insurer, if vehicle, there is employee’s one, personal protection pay employee’s must 3101(1). benefits under §

I. FACTS with Roadway Express, corporation a Delaware Ohio, in place engaged its of business principal transportation goods. Roadway in the interstate Parks, Michigan, as employed Wayne a resident of driver, and dock worker. March salesperson, On 13, 1981, working Parks was inside a Muskegon trailer located at terminal. Roadway’s In lifting fittings, the course of a carton of brass he injury subsequently diagnosed suffered an hiatal hernia. injured,

The trailer which Parks was No. 95836, was owned and by Roadway the State of Tennessee and several states other than The tractor to which the trailer Michigan. and licensed by Roadway was attached was owned Michigan. Roadway in the State of Parks Opinion of the Court self-insured, and thus no no-fault policy An trailer No. 95836. uncontested covered systems Roadway’s affidavit from procedures director trailer had been established only days operated Michigan 1981, three up including An uncon- March 1981. equip- Roadway’s director of tested affidavit from was ment that trailer established required a multistate under Michigan agreement and between States Tennessee. July 15, 1981, to no- Parks filed suit recover

On against Roadway, his self-insured fault benefits against employer, In- the Detroit Automobile and Exchange, his automobile ter-Insurance subsequently Department Parks added insurer. Assigned Facility aas defendant. State granted Roadway’s The motion for sum- trial court ownership finding Roadway’s mary judgment, that subject Roadway to 95836 could not of trailer No. liability trailer no-fault act because the under the requirements. subject security the аct’s was not The was not trailer registration agree-

Michigan because a multistate exempted Michigan and Tennessee ment between the trailer from the registration requirement Michigan operated in had been because for trailer days year thirty within the calendar less than injured. held, Parks was The trial court when indicating rationale, its the no-fault without Parks no- act the daiie with fault benefits. finding Appeals reversed, that the

The Court responsibility required Roadway to act assume was Parks’ no-fault benefits because furnished self-insured owner Parks. Parks v 360 App DAIIE, 520, 527-529; 138 Mich (1984). Appeals rea- The 238 Court NW2d Mich 191 426 198 op the Court is re- owner whether question soned itself a vehicle quired register has no of 3101 requirements mandatory could the owner whether bearing question on the 3114. 3105 under liable for benefits §§ be held appeal. leave to 26, 1985, granted Id. we June On 937. 422 Mich

II. STATUTORY PROVISIONS prelimi- two agreement about are parties First, the trailer which conclusions. nary iden- with an "motor vehicle” was a was it to which the tractor that of from tity separate act, "motor vehi- Under attached. trailer, including vehicle, as "a ‍​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‍is defined cle” public upon operation designed operated power than muscular other power highway by MCL than wheels.” has more which 24.13101(2)(c). Kelly Accord 500.3101(2)(c); MSA Lines, Inc, App Mich Truck Inter-City (1982). reason, we For this 209-211; 328 NW2d the trailer to determine to the look to Second, Parks is entitled liable. insurer is which act under the no-fault benefits protection at motor vehicle using parked he was because falls and this situation injury, the time of his result- exception injuries statutory within being unloaded property contact with ing from 500.3105, 500.3106(b); MSA from the vehicle. MCL 24.13106(b). remaining 24.13105, question The only pay to three insurers is is which of the benefits, automobile his 3101(1), as a employer, to his pursuant § (daiie) 3102(1) and to (Roadway) pursuant self-insurer §§ liable, the As- or, 3114(3), if neither of these MCL 500.3171 to Facility pursuant signed seq. 24.13171 et et seq.; MSA Parks v op the Court the no-fault act and question, To resolve exam- provisions must be statutory other relevant give throughout expression task ined. Our harmonizing legislative purpose by underlying statute, of the same provisions different give construing pari statutes materia People Smith, provision. fullest effect to each (1985). 427, 441; 378 NW2d 384 Mich the no- with the first two sections of begin We act, vehicles to the identify subject fault which of the act. The first mandatory security provisions provides: registrant of a motor vehicle

The owner or main- in this state shall payment per- under security tain benefits insurance, protection property sonal insurance, Secu- and residual insurance. during the rity continuously shall be in effect period registration of the motor vehicle. [MCL 24.13101(1). 500:3101(1); Emphasis MSA added.] second, applicable particularly to nonresident vehicles, registrants provides: owners or of motor registrant A of a motor nonresident owner oper- vehicle not in this state shall not permit operated in this ate or the vehicle to be aggregate days any of more than 30 state for an year continuously unless he or she main- calendar security for the tains benefits. [MCL 500.3102(1); 24.13102(1).] The trailer which Parks was does appear mandatory these two of the act under either of requirements First, to owners applies only provisions. "required of vehicles registrants High- created the Legislature this state.” 426 Mich 191 Opinion of the Court way Reciprocity it Board and has authorized reciprocal compacts enter into regarding with other states operation engaged in of trailers seq.; interstate commerce. MCL 3.161 et MSA seq. compact 9.1735 et Under a entered into Michigan Tennessee, State of and the State of trailer in which Parks was was not re- quired Michigan.2 Therefore, be subject mandatory the rity trailer was to the secu- requirement §in 3101(1). applies only

Second, § 3102(1) owned vehicles by nonresidents and not in this state. Security operated must maintained for vehicles thirty days single in this state for more than in a year. Roadway calendar cause it is a nonresident falls within be-

corporation and because Michigan agree Pursuant to the vehicle act and the multistate act, highway reciprocity Roadway’s ment authorized trailer applicable was not in this state. The section provides: of the motor vehicle act vehicle, coach, Every trailer, semitrailer, motor trailer trailer, pole upon highway, when driven or moved shall be provisions and certificate of title except act . . this .: (a) upon highway A vehicle driven or moved in conform- manufacturers, provisions relating ance with the of this act transporters, dealers, 257.216; or nonresidents. [MCL 9.1916.] highway reciprocity reciprocal agreements The tween and act authorizes be- among jurisdictions: other Notwithstanding any provision contrary, other of law to the [highway reciprocity] may board enter into and make such reciprocal compacts, agreements deems arrangements as the board proper expedient people and in the interests of the state, proper jurisdictions, with the authorities of other individually group jurisdictions, concerning either or with a fees, taxation, charges, operation regulation trucks, tractors, trailers, automobiles, buses, and all other automotive equipment engaged commerce international, interstate or intrastate upon public highways. 3.163; and over the [MCL MSA 9.1737.] Opinion of the Court

trailer No. 95836 was not in Michigan. However, Roadway’s director of systems and proce- dures attested trailer No. 95836 had been operated in Michigan 1981, three only days up 13, including March the date of Thus, Parks’ injury. trailer was not subject 3102(1) the mandatory requirements of § at the time of the injury.

The trailer in which Parks was injured was not to the registration requirements state; nor was it subject to the mandatory security requirements of the no-fault act. Never- theless, the daiie plain contends that language and judicial construction provisions priority of the no-fault act permit be held responsible Thus, for Parks’ benefits. the priority provisions for insurance liability the case law interpreting them must be examined.

III. PRIORITY OF PAYMENT 3101(1), The no-fault begins act with which for quoted convenience of the reader again as follows: registrant

The owner or of a motor vehicle in this state shall main- tain security per- of benefits under insurance, protection sonal property insurance, and rеsidual insurance. Secu- rity shall continuously during effect period of the motor vehicle. The act then specifies the order which various potentially liable insurers will be required to cover a claim for benefits. The relevant sections are set forth legisla- below clarify plan: tive 426 Mich op the Court

(1) (2), (3), Except provided in subsections (5), personal protection policy de- scribed in applies section to accidental bodily injury person policy, named in the person’s spouse, and a relative either domi- household, ciled in the same injury if the arises from a motor vehicle accident. . . . (2) motor transporting pas- vehicles [Addresses

sengers; not relevant here.] employee, An spouse, his or her or a relative household, of either domiciled in the same who suffers accidental bodily injury occupant while an of a motor vehicle owned or the employer, personal protection shall receive insur- ance beneñts to which the is entitled from the insurer of the furnished vеhicle.

(4) (1) Except provided (3), in subsections person suffering bodily injury arising accidental from a motor occupant vehicle accident while an of a motor personal protection vehicle shall claim insurance benefits from following insurers the priority: order of

(a) The registrant insurer of the owner or occupied. vehicle

(b) operator The insurer of the of the vehicle occupied. motorcycle operators passen- [Addresses

gers; not 500.3114; relevant here.] [MCL 24.13114.] 3101(1)

Sections set forth gen- the eral rule of priority: ‍​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‍A no-fault policy, which owners of vehicles

in the state must maintain as security, covers all injuries arising from the use of motor vehicles suffered by persons named in In other policy. words, general rule is that one to a looks person’s own insurer for no-fault benefits unless one of the 2, 3, statutory exceptions, subsections Parks v Opinion of the Court 1, Thus, Parks 5, under subsection applies.3 insurer, daiie, his to look to

would have one of the of benefits unless coverage his applies. stаtutory exceptions exception applica- of that may rule only The case which of this is subsection ble to facts mo- occupying injured while employees with deals The daiie employer. their tor furnished vehicles in- "bodily suffered that because contends of motor vehicle owned occupant while an jury look Roadway, Parks should registered by” of the furnished vehicle” "the insurer Roadway as it deny not does for benefits. furnished the vehicle owner and it not come within Parks, does responds but 3 because subsection provision the priority re- was not Parks was which act. under the no-fault quired examining us is one problem before priority and the provisions mandatory security pur- of which are central provisions, both priority the act’s section poses of the act. While situation which directly not address does general required, analysis Legislature’s inten- provisions the act and the who is liable for Parks’ bene- tion reveals fits. the prior- our of

Case law confirms construction act. This Court has provisions of the no-fault ity injured by that аn recently held when required vehicle not occupying a 3 injured this Those while occu Subsection 4 reinforces conclusion. provided pants rules of motor vehicles must look the subsections 1, 2, applying phrase priorities listed 4. The and 3 the in subsection before extensively registrant” implication argued. not of the "owner apply But 4 not because we read we assume subsection “owner does occupied” phrase registrant within of vehicle requirement part complete of more as stated 4 to be subsection 3101(1): registrant motor owner or of a "The § added). (emphasis registered in this state” 426 Mich the Court employee’s state, coverage. DAIIE, 412 Lee v looked to for should be (1982). Lee, 505; In an em- Mich 315 NW2d injured ployee of the United States Postal Service government-owned unloading from a his back mail mail government-owned vehicles truck. Because requirements, MCL are not 257.216(f); 9.1916(f), was not sub- the vehicle mandatory security requirements ject act, unin- § and hence was employ- Appeals held that the sured. The Court of not held liable for ee’s insurer could be Legislature reasoning benefits, did not compensate persons injured in uninsured intend to finding disagreed, the broad vehicles. We 3105(1), language providing that benefits must arising bodily injury paid out of "for accidental ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a per- vehicle” motor vehicle as a motor pay under sonal automobile insurer benefits involved was circumstances in which the vehicle p Id., 512. or insured. We reasoned reading that Legislature’s purposes: of the no-fault act furthered Legislature, purpose, in- its broader [T]he whenever, general as a tended to benefits proposition, in a motor vehi- insured accident, cle whether or not a or cov- and in its narrower involved; ered motor vehicle is purpose injured person’s personal intended that an primarily insurer stand liable for such benefits policy whether or not its covers the motor vehicle and even if the involved vehicle is cov- involved by policy ered issued anothеr no-fault insurer. [Id., p Emphasis 515. added.] emphasized portion quotation makes legislative clear that our decision was based on the Parks 205 op the Court upon impose primary responsibility decision to employee’s personal did not insurer. The decision coverage employer’s for the turn on the absence of case, is critical vehicle. This distinction because, required Roadway’s is not while trailer registered, Roadway self-insured, and there- be unin- 95836 cannot be considered fore trailer No. postal in sense as the vehicle sured the same Lee. Appeals opinions support our anal-

Two Court of Covington System, ysis in In v Interstate 88 Lee. (1979), App the Court of 492; Mich Appeals 277 NW2d employee held that an could not also from his em- recover benefits employer’s ployer’s vehicle was insurer when in this state. Covington nearly to those in are identical facts driving employee case. An was his this vehicle, and licensed an- which was employer self-insured, was other state. The ground that the benеfits on the refused to truck being was not a driven requirements of the no-fault agreed p Appeals Id., with act. 493. The Court reasoning express language employer, that the subjected only vehicles requirements in this state to the pp Id., act. 493-494. Covington Lee, an-

While was decided before following furthers this other decision released Lee analysis In of the act. Citizens Ins Co v Express, App Inc, 465; 135 Mich 354 NW2d 385 (1985), (1984), 421 Mich 857 the Court lv den Appeals again employee’s held that the self-insured automobile insurer employer rather than The facts liable for no-fault benefits. was remarkably in the similar to those Citizens are Roadway’s employee in a case at bar: 426 Mich Opinion of the Court state and had that licensed in another trailer was enough long require to not been in this state 3102(1). primary coverage § under trailer a the was in the case was whether issue separate After the tractor. "motor vehicle” from separate finding "motor trailer that the was the vehicle,” that trailer the Court concluded purposes no-fault act аnd of the "uninsured” for employee’s insurer automobile held the pp Id., 469, 471. liable benefits. reading act the of no-fault and

From a clear the reasoning law, find cited case we the follow- of the 3101(1) subjects ing: plain language First, §of the registered required only in those to be vehicles requirements. mandatory security this state the to actually is covered an The fact a vehicle that policy, of vehicle or that the owner the self-insured, not the vehicle is does alter whether require- to the need need not conform itself Legisla- policy Second, act. the ments the whereby persons provide a method ture was to readily injured be in accidents would automobile injury. provided the their from results of relief primary accomplishing Third, this the method of 3114(1), general result, § from the rule in one looks one’s own insurer for benefits exceptions applies. statutory unless one of the exception employee injured Fourth, in an an employer’s in subsection 3 of vehicle contained applies only in in- § 3114 the case which the required registered in this sured vehicle is Fifth, not state. because vehicle was exception and thus of subsection state general apply, we look to the intention does Legislature provide compensa- person’s through injured per- tion for sonal insurer. Court un- to minimize was intended

The no-fault act relatively simple certainties injured compensating in automo- those means of employee’s personal Holding the accidents. bile employer’s when benefits liable best effects is not goal.4 this conclusion, hold when an

In we vehicle, which out-of-state state under is not perti- registration act the motor vehicle agreement, when the vehicle nent multistate security provisions of the no- is not operated in this it has not been fault act because thirty days within the calen- for more than state personal employee’s year, in- automobile the dar the is liable for no-fault surer, in this case daiie, 3114(1). §§ and under 3105 benefits ISSUES IV. REMAINING ancillary remain this case. The issues Two subjects § 3163 the no-fault act first is whether 4 previously employee an can recover no-fault have held that We employer injured employee’s when from self-insured benefits the vehicle, exclusivity provision employer’s despite Work the in the Freight, Disability Compensation Motor Act. Mathis v Interstate ers’ (1980). 164; In consoli NW2d 708 Mathis and cases 408 Mich 289 it, remedy primary question was whether exclusive dated with provision precluded Disability Compensation Act an of Workers’ recovering employee em from no-fault benefits from a self-insured employment ployer while was in the course of when the liability occupying employer-owned an vehicle. We held employer’s as insurer was on the status an no-fault benefits rather based remedy employer, than an and therefore the exclusive Id., p provision raised was 184. None of the cases in Mathis not bar. question regarding in this vehicles not be the state; thus, controlling question in the be cited as Mathis cannot Co, App 572; Ins 113 Mich case bar. See also Becker Wolverine at (Mathis preclude liability employ not 317 344 does NW2d vehicle is benefits when ee’s own insurer insured). Mich 191 the Court no-fault benefits.5 for Parks’ liability Roadway That section states: automobile to transact An insurer authorized pro- personal property and and liability insurance and main- in this state shall file

tection insurance tain a any accidental certification written occurring damage property bodily injury or ownership, operation, main- arising from the state as a motor of a motor vehicle tenance or use vehicle who is insured by an out-of-state resident policies, under its automobile pro- property and subject to the shall be in this act. system set forth tection insurance 24.13163(1).] 500.3163(1); MSA [MCL Roadway daiie contends that it "in- because was an file the certificate that Parks’ argues injury The daiie also surer.” trailer an out-of- of the use of the arose out is a Delaware Roadway resident because state principal place its of business corporation with true, then Assuming this Ohio. system” . . . insurance must

"subject cover Parks’ benefits. plain under lan- argumеnt must fail

This First, status as guage Roadway’s of the statute. it in the place category self-insurer does not to transact automobile authorized "[a]n property pro- liability insurance . .” state . . MCL tection 24.13163(1). 500.3163(1); MSA See also MCL 24.13101(3) 500.3101(3); MSA address- (specifically ing insurers authorized to transact busi- "duly contrast, ness”; self-insurers are addressed by language stating that the with § 5 court, timely in the Court This issue was not raised in the circuit However, Appeals, occupied it considerable time at or in this Court. Court, argument purposes judicial before this and for the oral economy, it we address here. 209 Opinion op the Court

security "may provided any other method by affording of state approved by secretary equivalent to that afforded by policy insurance”). 24.13105(1) 500.3105(1); MSA Cf. MCL to an to (referring generally liability pay insurer’s benefits). language specific Because the of 3163 is § insurers, to "authorized” this is not a situation in treating which the "context” self-insurers permits 3101(4). pursuant as insurance to companies, § Second, 3163 applies situations which the § out of injury ownership, operation, arises maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle an out- by Ins, Inc, of-state resident. Mills v Auto-Owners 413 (1982). Mills, 571-572; Mich In NW2d out-of-state was entitled to motorcyclist because, though no-fault benefits even a motorcy- not defined in the cle is a "motor vehicle” as no- act, fault other involved in the accident party a motor vehicle. The Mills Court held using require 3163 did not the insurer of the out- § of-state to cover his motorcyclist injuries because injuries did not arise from the use of a "motor rather, resident; vehicle” out-of-state insurer of the re- Michigan-insured vehicle was quired motorcyclist’s injuries. cover the Accord Exchange, Guibord v Farmers Ins App 110 Mich (1981). 218; 312 injury NW2d Because the at issue in the case at bar arose out of the use of the Parks, resident, Michigan trailer 3163 is § simply applicable.

Some consider 3163 to may apply Roadway owner- because the accident Roadway’s arose from ship of the motor vehicle. However, the mere fact owned trailer No. 95836 would not ‍​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‍it liability injury. for Parks’ The critical phrase word is the "its” in the "who is possessive insured under its automobile The "its” refers to the "insurer” policies.” 426 Mich Opinion of the Court Roadway, opening phrase section; therefore the implicated owner of the the resident out-of-state subject liability only if vehicle, to motor would be transact automo- it "insurer authorized to were an ... in this state.” Because insurance bile Roadway "an authorized to transact not is liability insurance,” to it is not automobile protection personal property insurance "the Roadway system Thus, is not forth this act.” set injury. Parks’ liable for question this is resolved in case

The final to be escape liability for Parks’ the daiie can whether injuries coverage the to shift the burden of Assigned Facility. person A entitled to no- through may them an as- fault signed obtain benefits plan personal protection in- "if no claims personal applicable injury, the no to surance protection injury applicable the can to insurance personal only identified, ... identifiable or the applicablе injury protection is, to insurance inability of 1 or more insurers of financial because inadequate obligations, to fulfill their up prescribed.” MCL benefits maximum 500.3172; MSA 24.13172. preceding analysis of the no-fault act and interpreting it clear make decisions "appli- personal protection

Parks’ own injury.” Roadway cannot cable To reiterate: as the be held liable Parks’ benefits employer furnished the self-insured which regis- the vehicle because Michigan. However, does not mean tered in applies that no contrary, injury. §§ 3105 On permit insurer, automobile Parks’ arising injuries out of held liable for daiie, spite trailer, of the fact Parks’ use of Parks v Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, did "cover” the vehicle as a self-insurer. Lee, Citizens, supra, pp 515-516; See supra, p 471. above, For all the reasons we reverse the deci- sion of the Court Appeals and find that Parks’ personal insurer, daiie, must his pay per- sonal benefits because Roadway’s trailer No. 95836 was a vehicle which was not required to Michigan and was not subject the security рrovisions of the no-fault act. Riley, JJ.,

Brickley, Boyle, concurred with Williams, C.J. J. (dissenting). The

Cavanagh, holds majority an employee’s carrier is liable for no-fault benefits when the employee is while an occupying employer- owned motor vehicle that is not in this state or to the state’s mandatory security provisions under the no-fault I holding act. dissent from this because the unam- biguous language provisions priority no-fault act legislative evinces a intent to hold an liable for primarily protection insurance benefits when an injured while occupying a motor vehicle owned or by his employer. Roadway, Since self-insured, injured employee’s employer, Road- way should be held liable for plaintiff’s personal protection insurance benefits.

i The no-fault act specifies the order of priority between insurers to pay personal protection insur- ance benefits. Section 3114 of the act establishes this priority:

(1) (2), (3), Except provided as in subsections 426 Mich Dissenting Cavanagh, policy de- (5), personal prоtection 3101(1) applies to accidental in section scribed policy, person named bodily injury to domi- of either spouse, and a relative person’s household, arises injury if the in the ciled same . . . accident. motor vehicle from a pas- (2) transporting motor vehicles [Addresses sengers; not relevant here.] (3) spouse, or a relative his or her employee, An household, who in the same of either domiciled occupant bodily injury while an accidental suffers of a motor vehicle registered by the owned insur- personal protection receive employer, shall entitled employee is which the benefits to ance from vehicle. the furnished the insurer of (1) (3), in subsections Except provided arising injury bodily suffering accidental person from a motor vehicle occupant accident while personal protection shall claim motor vehicle of a insurance benefits following in the from insurers priority: order of

(a) registrant of the or of the owner The insurer occupied. vehicle

(b) the vehicle operator of The insurer of occupied. (5) operators passen- or motorcycle [Addresses 500.3114; MSA

gers; not relevant here.] [MCL 24.13114.] de- policy personal protection 3101(1) secu- mandatory refers to

scribed of a registrant for an owner or requirement rity in this to vehicle be motor 24.1310K1).1 Hence, 500.3101(1); MSA MCL state. 3101(1) establish, rule of general 3114 as a §§ insurer that one’s priority, registrant motor provides of a owner Section "[t]he in this state shall maintain vehicle insurance, property payment of benefits under for protection insurance, Security shall insurance. and residual continuously during period of of be in effect motor vehicle.” Parks v Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, arising injuries

liable for benefits for all out of the any of use motor vehicle the named insured. (5) 3114(2), (3), exceptions However, § are general this rule. Subsection is relevant repeat, pro- facts case. To this subsection vides as follows: employee, An spouse, his or her or a relative household, either domiciled in the same who suf- bodily injury occupant fers accidental while an registered by a motor vehicle owned or the em-

ployer, personal protection shall receive benefíts to which the is entitled from the employee furnished vehicle. [Emphasis added.] unambiguous language Pursuant of this only subsection, an need show that he occupying while a motor vehicle registered by employer owned or his order employer’s recover benefits from his plain language insurer. The require of the statute does not motor be mandatory security state or to the state’s provisions Furthermore, under the no-fault act. as act, defined in the a motor vehicle does not have registered in this state: vehicle, "Motor vehicle” means a including a upon a trailer, operated designed operation public highway by power other than muscular power which has more than wheels. [MCL 500.3101(2)(c); 24.13101(2)(c).] Legislature Where, here, "the uses certain unambiguous language, plain meaning the statute must be followed.” Browder v Int’l Fidelity Co, 603, 611; Ins 413 Mich 321 NW2d 668 (1982), citing Rapids Crocker, Grand 219 Mich (1922); 178, 182; 188 NW 221 Dussia v Monroe Co 426 Mich 191 Cavanagh, Dissenting Opinion System, 244, Employees 248; 386 Mich Retirement (1971); Sands, Sutherland Statu- 2A NW2d (4th ed), tory 46.04. The §§ 46.01 and Construction language unambiguous §of certain Legislature intended that establishes per- employers for be liable that sonal ployee the insurers an em- when insurance benefits occupying employer- injured an is while Unlike the motor vehicle. owned or majority, Legislature I do not believe employer’s insurer’s intended that an upon employ- be conditioned no-fault benefits er’s vehicle being state or security provisions. mandatory to this state’s

ii employee previously an can held that We have a self-insured em- no-fault benefits from recover ployer in the em- when the exclusivity provision despite ployer’s Disability ‍​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‍Compensation Act. Mathis the Workers’ Freight, 164, 175; 289 408 Mich v Interstate Motor (1980). DAIIE, 412 Mich In Lee v NW2d 708 (1982), held that an em- 516; 315 NW2d 413 we may ployee’s personal no-fault insurer be liable vehicle is no-fault benefits when holding specifically uninsured. limited to the facts of that uninsured motor vehicle. in Lee was Our

case, which involved Furthermore, in conclud- requiring ing the no-fault act the sections of nothing insured have to do certain vehicles setting sections forth whether benefits with those payable liable, we stated are and which insurer following: language qualifying right There is no pay duty them with beneñts or the insurer’s 215 Parks v Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, requirement "regis- that such motor vehicle be tered,” "insured,” motor vehicle as or "covered” might easily Legis- had indeed have been done the requirement merely The is that lature so intended. used, the vehicle involved be a "motor vehicle” maintained, operated or owned "as a motor vehi- cle.” speculate

We are not left to about whether the Legislature expression intended the "motor vehi- or insured cle” to mean covered motor vehicle when it used those words as an expression meaning in throughout of art the statute. expression explicitly set down of is act, definitional section of 3102(2)(c) .... § language limiting Conspicuously any absent registered in "motor vehicle” to one sеcurity must be the state or for which no-fault maintained.4 interesting mopeds, It to note that while like other categories cov of vehicles . . . are not to be no-fault 257.216; they MCL MSA 9.1916 are not ered because under Michigan, required to be in the State of the section act, 3101(2)(c), specifi defining "motor vehicle” in the no-fault § separately motorcycles mopeds, cally excludes but fact, think, weight the others. That point we adds further Legislature of intended that the kinds vehicles payment "motor under the beneñt which constitute vehicles”

provisions of the act and the kinds of vehicles which must be policy separate and covered under a no-fault are subjects. Emphasis 512-513. Mich [412 added.] reading A consistent of both Mathis and Lee is no insurer establishes the rule that where there vehicle, of an the no-fault insurer employer’s injured employee’s personal may automobile insur- payment personal protection be liable for However, vehi- employer’s ance benefits. where the insured, cle is is liable insurance ben- personal protection 426 Mich Dissenting Levin, J. upon the trailer self-insured efits. Since apply, injured, plaintiff would which and payment Roadway, is liable for than daiie, rather personal protection plaintiff’s insur- benefits. ance

Conclusion legislative purposes analysis furthers the This employer’s enacting an act. Where the no-fault personal employee’s in- uninsured, the is vehicle benefits, thus the is surer giving liable purpose of the no-fault effect the broad to general whenever, as a "to benefits act injured proposition, is in a motor vehi- insured an registered accident, or or cov- whether cle ered supra, Lee, . . . .” motor is involved employer a motor vehi- 515. cle, has insured When pay- liable for the is priority giving to benefits, thus effect ment of (3). 3114(1) Legislature by §in established reasons, I affirm Court For these Appeals would of the court. reversal trial J., concurred with J. Cavanagh, Archer, Wayne Levin, J. Parks while work- ing Express, by employer, Roadway in a trailer owned his parties agreement The that Inc. are (no- protection personal Parks is entitled to receive fault) pursuant § 3107 of the no-fault benefits liability act.1 automobile question presented

The such benefits is whether payable by Inter-Insurance are Exchange, Detroit Automobile insurer of Parks’ automo by Roadway Express, bile, em or his self-insured 500.3107; 24.13107. MCL Dissenting Opinion by Levin, or an insurer ployer, by assigned by the Assigned Facility. Section 3114 of the no-fault act provides no-fault policy applies accidental bod- person ily injury named but policy, an employee who suffers accidental bodily occupant while an "a injury motor vehicle owned or employer, shall receive benefits to which entitled from the insurer of the (Emphasis furnished vehicle.”3 supplied.) trailer was not Roadway because Roadway is a for- eign corporation, and such an owner registrant of a motor vehicle is not required to it register it if operated in this state —as was the trailer —for than thirty less days any calendar year.4 Express, pursuant act, had qualified as a self-insured.5

i Express, and the majority, wоuld read term registrant "owner or of a motor vehicle” meaning as registrant "owner or of a motor vehi registered cle state,”6 be in this view ing omission of words "required to be ^[2] 3 4 registered benefits under tion motor supplied.] MCL MCL MCL MCL 6 The in insurance, effect 500.3171; 500.3114(3); 500.3101(4); 500.3102; vehicle. [MCL owner in this state shall maintain continuously during or MSA 24.13171. MSA 24.13102. and residual MSA MSA registrant 500.3101(1); 24.13114(3). 24.13101(4). protection of a motor vehicle insurance, period insurance. security 24.13101(1). property protec Security Emphasis shall of 426 Mich Levin, Dissenting sec § in 3114 and other state” regis or "owner act the words tions of the where meaning, intending change appear7 no trant” as the full version of as a shorthand but rather expression. (on Department agree of State with the daiie, I Assigned Facility), and Jus-

behalf registrant Cavanagh the term "owner or tice that vehicle,” §in is not used [a] motor concept "required qualified by the state.” A is maintain- act While either construction able, I think it is conclusion because I reach this reading a a of the act as more with consonant whole. person provides is not entitled to The act (1) in three circumstances: where

no-fault benefits the using person had a vehicle he taken was (2) person tmlawfully, the owner or where was registrant in the acci- of a motor vehicle involved respect to which no-fault insurance dent with person effect, not in where occupant state, of this was an in this state and was "not a resident of a motor vehicle an insurer which has filed

was not insured compliance 3163.”8 with section certification provides authorized Section 3163 per- liability insurance and to transact automobile (no-fault) property protection sonal and in property shall be this state (no-fault) system set respect to a motor forth in the no-fault act accompanying text. See and and ns 10 24.13113(c). 500.3113(c); 8 MCL MSA Parks Dissenting by Levin, operated, by owned, maintained, or used er.9 out-of-state resident insured the insur Legislature The thus indicated an intention that an insurer who has been authorized to write no- provide fault insurance in this state shall respect benefits in to vehicles not operated by state out-of-state residents. Nonresi- occupants dent of a motor vehicle not generally this state are entitled to no-fault benefits from the insurer of the out-of-state vehicle.

B concept registered” repeated "owned or priority applicable, the example, sections of the act injured person

where the does not have a policy priority of no-fault insurance. The sections person that, the act case, in such a suffering bodily injury accidental shall first claim no-fault benefits from the "insurer of the owner or 9 (1) An insurer liability authorized to transact automobile personal property protection insurance and and insurance this state shall file and maintain a written certification that any bodily injury property damage occurring accidental or arising ownership, this state operation, from the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle an out-of-state resident who is policies, insured under its automobile insurance personal property protec shall be and system

tion insurance set forth in this act. (2) may A voluntarily nonadmitted insurer file the certifica- (1). tion described in subsection (3) (1) When a certification filed under subsections or applies bodily injury property damage, accidental or respect damage injury and its insureds with to that rights personal have the and immunities under this act for protection insureds, property rights and claimants have the property protection and benefits of claimants, including right to receive benefits from the electing property protection insurer as if it were an insurer of applicable to the accidental bod- ily injury property damage. 500.3163; [MCL 24.13163.] 191 426 Mich 220 Dissenting Levin, occupied10 registrant of the vehicle” occupant, person the vehicle or, where not an claiming accident,11 insur- before in the involved operator of the vehicle from the ance benefits occupied in the accident. or involved registered” Reading expression "owned or registered” "required concept qualified by the insurer of an out-of-state mean would complied § not had with 3163 would vehicle who payment subject liability of no-fault to for be pedestrian his own who did not have benefits to a by the out- was struck no-fault insurance and who might it had insured. This of-state vehicle which assigned by an insurer mean that such a case Assigned Facility in- than the rather responsi- vehicle would be surer of out-of-state payment That does no-fault benefits. ble for the apparent appear consonant with the not purpose § 3163 insurers of out-of-state are to transact automobile vehicles who authorized liability insurance of no-fault benefits in state general as if vehicle had benefits. I been and insured basis, § 3163, for differenti- see no consistent with depending ating insurers on regis- whether an insured vehicle or was in this state. tered

ii asserted, however, § It 3163 does not govern Roadway Ex- in the case instant because press is self-insured and is not an insurer author- ized to transact automobile insurance. Express qualified pursuant as a self-insured 500.3114; MCL MSA 24.13114. 500.3115; MSA 24.13115. MCL v Dissenting Opinion by Levin, J. Department act,12 of the no-fault and the of State issued a certificate of self-insurance ‍​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‍stat- ing that the certificate "covers all vehicles owned by Roadway.” Presumably, Roadway had at least registered Michigan one vehicle or it would not qualified have aas self-insured and obtained such was, sense, certificate.13It in that like an insurance company that had obtained authorization to trans- act automobile this state it because covering wished to write insurance one or more vehicles. 3101(4) purpose

The stated §of is to self- obligations rights insurers to "all the and of an chapter.” insurer under this "[TJhis [the no-fault] chapter” purport provide obliga- does not rights tions and of insurers who are not authorized to transact automobile this state. chapter provide Since the no-fault does not obligations rights and of an insurer not so autho- rized to transact state, business this I expression obligations would read the "all the and rights chapter” of an insurer under this as mean- ing obligations rights all the as an insurer authorized to trаnsact automobile insurance in Security required by may provided by subsection be any approved by secretary other method of state as afford

ing security equivalent policy to that afforded of insur ance, proof security continuously if is filed and main secretary throughout tained with the period. of state person filing security obligations has all the rights chapter. of an insurer under this When the context permits, chapter, any "insurer” person as used in this includes filing provided 500.3101(4); as in this section. [MCL 24.13101(4).] 13Roadway’s application 1, August for self-insured status sworn to registered Michigan. showed that it had 626 motor vehicles qualifying The "conditions for Secretary as a self-insurer with the applicant State” that an must have "at least 26 motor registered Michigan.” vehicles to be 426 Mich Levin, Dissenting Opinion obligations including and, thus, state, § 3163. under an insurer again, with not, consonant

Further, it would providing objectives it as to construe of the act responsibility person has less that a self-insured from a transfer insurer, to in effect than case, as, insurers, such self-insured assigned by (daiie) or an insurer Parks’ Facility, responsibility Assigned if it were would have of the vehicle an insurer rather than self-insured. insured judgment of the Court I would affirm Appeals.

Case Details

Case Name: Parks v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Oct 3, 1986

Citation: 393 N.W.2d 833

Docket Number: Docket Nos. 75437, 75438, (Calendar No. 2)

Court Abbreviation: Mich.