HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM v. ESURANCE INS. CO., 488 Mich. 1026 (2010)

792 N.W.2d 336

HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM v. ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 141448.Supreme Court of Michigan.
January 13, 2011.

Reported below: 288 Mich. App. 593.

Leave to Appeal Denied.

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. Compar Amerisure Ins Co v. Plumb, 282 Mich. App. 417 (2009), lv den 485 Mich 909 (2009), with Farmers Ins Exch v Young, 488 Mich 980 (directing oral argument on whether to grant the application). See, also, Budget Rent-A-Car Sys v 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

Page 1027

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 shootouts 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., joined the statement of MARKMAN, J.