State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v. Michigan Municipal Risk Mgmt Auth ( 2014 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
April 11, 2014 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
147752 Michael F. Cavanagh
Stephen J. Markman
Mary Beth Kelly
Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE David F. Viviano,
INSURANCE COMPANY, Justices
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 147752
COA: 306844
Shiawassee CC: 07-005893-CK
MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL RISK
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 13, 2013
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not
persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
MARKMAN, J. (dissenting).
I would grant leave to appeal. This case, remarkable in its outcome in my
judgment, features a speeding and uninsured motorcyclist who was injured when he
crashed his motorcycle while fleeing from the police, and who thereafter collected a
double no-fault insurance recovery. In particular, I would grant leave to decide two
questions. First, whether a pursuing police vehicle was “involved in the accident” for the
purposes of MCL 500.3114(5)(a) of the no-fault insurance act when that police vehicle,
after slowing down out of concern for the motorcyclist’s safety and for its own ability to
navigate a curved dirt road, followed a half-mile and a sharp curve behind the fleeing
motorcyclist such that the police vehicle could not even see the motorcycle at the time of
the crash. Cf. Turner v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 448 Mich 22, 38-40 (1995) (indicating that a
police vehicle is “involved in the accident” of a vehicle it is pursuing when the police
vehicle “actively, as opposed to passively, contribute[s] to the accident” and that there
must be more than a mere “‘but for’ connection between” the police vehicle and the
accident, “even where a ‘but for’ standard is narrowed by interposing a requirement of
physical proximity” between the police vehicle and the accident). Second, whether, if the
police vehicle was “involved in the accident,” defendant has a coverage responsibility for
2
medical expenses in the amount of $218,000, an amount already paid by the
motorcyclist’s health insurance, an issue involving an analysis of the interaction between
MCL 500.3114(5)(a) and MCL 500.3109a, in circumstances in which a motorcyclist
involved in an accident lacks vehicular insurance but has health insurance.
ZAHRA, J., joins the statement of MARKMAN, J.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
April 11, 2014
p0408
Clerk