Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kelly,
J ustices 

# 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 consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

M ARKMAN , J. ( concurring ).

The result here—in which defendant insu rance 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 th is Court, and with the Court of Appeals, that the law as it now stands comp els 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 cas e, who has no insurance, and who was knowingly riding in a stolen vehi cle driven by a person without a driver’s
license while under the influence of alcoho l, is entitled to no-fa ult 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 de n 485 Mich 909 (2009), with Farmers Ins Exch v Young

, ___ Mich ___ (Docket No. 141571, order entere d Dec 3, 2010, directing oral argument onI, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, 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 a pplication). See also, Budget Rent-A-Car Sys v City of Detroit , 482 Mich 1098 (2008), in wh ich 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 ba rgains for when it en ters into a policy w ith the owner of a vehicle, and responsible citizen s will inevitably pay these cost s through higher premiums. If the coverage in these cases is what is inte nded by the Legislature, I must defer to its judgment; if, however, it is not, the Legislat ure should take clear notice that no-fault benefits are now recoverable even by persons w hose “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.

Y OUNG , C.J., and C ORRIGAN and M ARY B ETH K ELLY , JJ., join the statement of

M ARKMAN , J.