-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

ADAM HEICHEL,

Plaintiff,

and

ST. JOHN MACOMB-OAKLAND HOSPITAL,

Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee, and

MENDELSON ORTHOPEDICS, P.C.,

Intervening Plaintiff, UNPUBLISHED March 1, 2016

v No. 323818 Wayne Circuit Court GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, LC No. 12-003780-NF

Defendant/Third-Party PlaintiffAppellant,

and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant,

and

EAN HOLDINGS, L.L.C. and ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendants/Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.-2- ADAM HEICHEL,

Plaintiff, and

ST. JOHN MACOMB-OAKLAND HOSPITAL,

Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee, and

MENDELSON ORTHOPEDICS, P.C.,

Intervening Plaintiff,

v No. 324045 Wayne Circuit Court GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, LC No. 12-003780-NF

Defendant/Third-Party PlaintiffAppellant, and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant, and

EAN HOLDINGS, INC. and ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendants/Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.

Before: G LEICHER , P.J., and J ANSEN and S HAPIRO , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. The no-fault insurance act requires owners of motor vehicles r egistered in Michigan to maintain security for payment of personal injury protection (PI P) benefits. MCL 500.3101(1). This obligation also extends to the owners of vehicles register ed in other states that are operated in Michigan for more than 30 da ys in a calendar year. MCL 500. 3102(1).

The Ford Fusion involved in the accident giving rise to this p riority dispute was owned by defendant EAN Holdings, L.L.C., and registered in North Caro lina. It had been in Michigan-3- for less than 30 days when it struck plaintiff Adam Heichel’s m otorcycle. Because the no-fault act’s security provision does not apply to the vehicle, neither do the no-fault act’s priority provisions. As a practical matter, this means that EAN is not responsible for paying Heichel’s first-party no-fault benefits. T he circuit court reached the s ame conclusion. We affirm.

I

While driving a Ford Fusion rented from Enterprise Rent-A-Car in Pennsylvania, Krzysztof Pietruczynik ran a red light in Orion Township and st ruck Heichel’s motorcycle. Heichel suffered serious injurie s. Pietruczynik’s wife, Mary R oddy, had signed the Enterprise rental agreement. EAN owned the Ford and registered it in Nort h Carolina. In 2010, Michigan’s secretary of state certified EAN as a qualified self-insurer un der MCL 500.3101(4).

Defendant Geico Indemnity Compa ny insured a personal vehicle o wned by Roddy and Pietruczynik. Roddy had a State Farm policy on another persona l vehicle; as to that vehicle, Pietruczynik was a named insured. Thus, there were three poten tial sources through which Heichel could seek payment of PIP benefits: EAN, Geico and Stat e Farm.

Heichel first tagged EAN, which denied his claim. Heichel the n filed suit against Geico, which successfully moved to join State Farm as a party defendan t. Meanwhile, St. John Macomb-Oakland Hospital and Mendelson Orthopedics, P.C. interve ned, seeking reimbursement for their services. Many motions and procedural moves later, t he circuit court granted EAN’s motion for summary disposition, ruling that Parks v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch , 426 Mich 191, 201; 393 NW2d 833 (1986), absolved EAN of liability for Heichel ’s no-fault claim.

Geico and State Farm agreed to a judgment by consent in favor of Heichel, St. John Macomb, and Mendelson Orthopedics. The judgment reserved the t wo insurance companies’ rights to claim an appeal of the circuit court’s summary dispos ition ruling. We have consolidated their appeals. Bot h contend that EAN is liable fo r payment of Heichel’s no-fault benefits because EAN’s self-insured status meant that it assume d the duties of a commercial insurer and thus was highest in priority under MCL 500.3114(5), which governs the order of PIP benefit payment responsibility in motorcycle-motor vehicle acci dents.

II

We review de novo a circuit cour t’s resolution of a summary di sposition motion. Zaher v Miotke , 300 Mich App 132, 139; 832 NW2d 266 (2013). We also review d e novo matters of statutory interpretation. Stanton v City of Battle Creek , 466 Mich 611, 614; 647 NW2d 508 (2002). The goal of statutory interpretation is to discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Odom v Wayne Co , 482 Mich 459, 467; 760 NW2d 217 (2008). The first step in determining legislative intent i s the language of the statute. Id. If the statutory language is unambiguous, then the Legislature’ s intent is clear and judicia l construction is neither necessary nor permitted. Id.

III

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Parks v DAIIE , 462 Mich 191, paves the way to our decision in this case. We readily acknowledge that the facts o f Parks differ from those presented-4- here. But Parks ’s reasoning is straightforward, a nd leads inexorably to our co nclusion that because EAN is not subject to the security requirements of the no-fault act, EAN cannot be held liable for Heichel’s PIP benefits.

Michigan’s no-fault automobile insurance act, MCL 500.3101 et seq ., requires that Michigan drivers maintain no- fault automobile insurance. American Home Assurance Co v Mich Catastrophic Claims Ass’n , 288 Mich App 706, 717; 795 NW2d 172 (2010). MCL 500.3101(1) provides “[t]he owner or registra nt of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state shall maintain security for payment of benefits under [PIP], property protection insurance, and residual liability insurance.” O nly vehicles that must be regi stered in Michigan are subject to the requirements of the no-fault insurance act. Covington v Interstate Sys , 88 Mich App 492, 494; 277 NW2d 4 (1979). However, an out-of-state vehicle owner must maintain security for the payment of no-fault benefits if he or she permits a vehicle to be operated in Michigan for “an aggregate of more than 30 days i n any calendar year” regardless of whether the vehicle is registered in Michigan. MCL 500.3102(1).

Geico and State Farm insist that these well-established rules fall to the wayside when a vehicle owner such as EAN volunt arily files a certificate with the state of Michigan attesting that when responsible for doing so, it will provide “security equiva lent to that afforded by a policy of insurance[.]” MCL 500.3101(4). In enacting § 3101(4), the Leg islature recognized that some vehicle owners, particularly fleet operators such as EAN or Ent erprise, might elect to self-insure rather than to purchase no-fault coverage. See MCL 257.531; Allstate Ins Co v Elassal , 203 Mich App 548, 553; 512 NW2d 856 (1994). We agree with Geico an d State Farm that under the no-fault act, a self-insurer is an insurer. Id . at 554. “[S]elf-insurance, as certified by the Secretary of State, is the functi onal equivalent of a commercia l insurance policy, with the purpose of either form being to compensate victims properly.” Id . But this concession does not end the analysis.

Despite EAN’s status as an insurer, the no-fault act simply di d not apply to the Ford Fusion. See Parks , 426 Mich at 206 (“The fact th at a vehicle is actually covered by an insurance policy, or that the owner of the vehicle is self-insured , does not alter whether the vehicle itself need or need not conform to the requirements of the act.”) (emp hasis added). Consequently, declaring that EAN is an insu rer under MCL 500.3114 does not di spose of the broader question: whether the priority provisi ons of MCL 500.3114(5) pertain at a ll.

“Generally, under MCL 500.3101(1) and MCL 500.3114(1), an indi vidual must seek nofault benefits from his own insurer unless one of the exception s enumerated in MCL 500.3114(2), (3), or (5) applies.” Farmers Ins Exch v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich , 272 Mich App 106, 111; 724 NW2d 485 (2006). One of the exceptions, MCL 500.3114(5), addresses the order of priority f or payment of no-fault benefit s to the operator of a motorcycle and provides:

A person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a moto r vehicle accident which shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle whil e an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim [PIP] benefits from insur ers in the following order of priority:-5- (a) The insurer of the owner or registrant of the motor vehicle involved in the accident.

(b) The insurer of the operator of the motor vehicle involved i n the accident.

(c) The motor vehicle insurer of the operator of the motorcycle involved in the accident.

(d) The motor vehicle insurer of the owner or registrant of the motorcycle involved in the accident

If the no-fault act applies to the Ford Fusion that struck Heic hel, EAN would be first in the order of priority. Geico would be second.

However, Parks , 426 Mich at 206, instru cts that the prior ity provisions set f orth in § 3114 apply “only in the case in which the insured vehicle is require d to be registered in this state.” In Parks , as here, the involved vehicle wa s registered in a state other than Michigan and Michigan law did not require Michigan registration. Id . at 197, 200-201. This fact was central to the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Parks that the vehicle owner could not be held liable for payment of PIP benefits because the involved vehicle “was not required to be registered in Michigan and was not subject to the security provisions of the no-fault act. ” Id. at 211. The Court explained that “the plain language of § 3101( 1) subjects only those vehic les required to be registered in this state to the mandatory security requirements.” Id . at 206. The Court held that the plaintiff’s personal automobile insurer, rath er than the vehicle’s insurer, bore liability for payment of PIP benefits because the plaintiff

[was] injured in an employer’s out-of-state vehicle, which is n ot required to be registered in this state under the motor vehicle registration a ct and . . . is not subject to the security provisions of the no-fault act because it has not been operated in this state for more than thirty days within the cal endar year[.] [ Id . at 207.]

Parks is not precisely on point, as it arose from a workplace injury in an employment context, did not involve a motorcycle, and dealt with a differe nt subsection of MCL 500.3114. These distinctions make no difference. In Parks , the vehicle involved in the accident was owned by a self-insured nonresident company, was registered in anothe r state, and was not required to be registered in Michigan. The same is true here. In Parks , another insurer contended that the nonresident vehicle owner was liable under MCL 500.3114, regard less of whether the no-fault act required the owner to maintai n security on the vehicle. Ag ain, the same is true here. In Parks , the Supreme Court rejected the complaining insurer’s argument , holding that the registration requirement set f orth in § 3101(1) is the key to l iability under the no-fault act. A-6- vehicle that does not need to be registered in Michigan cannot trigger the application of the priority provisions set forth in MCL 500.3114. Parks , 426 Mich at 203-204. This core holding underpins our decision in this case.

We affirm.

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher /s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Douglas B. Shapiro