Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Maura D. Corrigan

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly, Justices

Order 

January 13, 2011 

141448 

HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

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 nofault 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 
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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 13, 2011 

y0112 

 

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.