Henry Ford Health System v. Esurance Ins Co

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
January 13, 2011 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
141448 Michael F. Cavanagh
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
Stephen J. Markman
HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, Diane M. Hathaway
Plaintiff-Appellee, Mary Beth Kelly,
Justices
v SC: 141448
COA: 288633
Wayne CC: 07-702050-NF
ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 8, 2010
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not
persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
MARKMAN, J. (concurring).
The result here—in which defendant insurance company is required to provide no-
fault benefits to a passenger who was riding in a vehicle insured by defendant when it
was obviously stolen—is deeply troubling, but I agree with this Court, and with the Court
of Appeals, that the law as it now stands compels this result. However, while I am bound
to follow this law, I take this opportunity to express my concerns. Under MCL
500.3113(a), a person, such as the injured person in this case, who has no insurance, and
who was knowingly riding in a stolen vehicle driven by a person without a driver’s
license while under the influence of alcohol, is entitled to no-fault benefits from the
insurer of the stolen vehicle. Moreover, under this same provision, there is confusion as
to whether an injured person who himself takes a vehicle without permission, and who
drives it without insurance and without a valid license, and who drives it while
intoxicated, is entitled to no-fault benefits. Compare Amerisure Ins Co v Plumb, 282
Mich App 417 (2009), lv den 485 Mich 909 (2009), with Farmers Ins Exch v Young, ___
Mich ___ (Docket No. 141571, order entered Dec 3, 2010, directing oral argument on
2
whether to grant the application). See also, Budget Rent-A-Car Sys v City of Detroit, 482
Mich 1098 (2008), in which this Court affirmed an award of no-fault benefits to a fleeing
felon who had used his car as a shield while aiming a firearm at a pursuing police officer.
Coverage in these and similar situations, in my judgment, goes far beyond the scope of
what an insurer reasonably bargains for when it enters into a policy with the owner of a
vehicle, and responsible citizens will inevitably pay these costs through higher premiums.
If the coverage in these cases is what is intended by the Legislature, I must defer to its
judgment; if, however, it is not, the Legislature should take clear notice that no-fault
benefits are now recoverable even by persons whose “fault” pertains to theft, carjacking,
and shoot-outs with the police, rather than “fault” pertaining only to negligent or careless
driving of a motor vehicle.
YOUNG, C.J., and CORRIGAN and MARY BETH KELLY, JJ., join the statement of
MARKMAN, J.
I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.
January 13, 2011 _________________________________________
y0112 Clerk