The controversy among these parties stems from the contentious relationship between Michigan and Ohio regarding the licensure of public adjusters in their respective states. Ohio has a residency requirement in its licensure statute, which states that no license will be issued or renewed to an applicant who is not a resident of Ohio. The restrictive nature of Ohio's residency requirement was highlighted when the association's president, a Michigan resident, and another Michigan resident set up an Ohio corporation and were unable to acquire Ohio licensing either individually or through their new corporate status. The corporation appealed the decisions, and the Ohio Supreme Court ultimately held that denial of the licensure was proper because neither the officers nor the directors of the corporation were Ohio residents. In 1978, Michigan inserted a reciprocal provision in its licensure statute, denying licenses to applicants who reside in a jurisdiction that would deny a comparable license to a Michigan resident solely because of residency.
Petitioners are all residents of Indiana.
They are all employed by Sill-Indiana, an adjusting firm that was incorporated in 1975 in Indiana, a state that does not discriminate against Michigan residents. Robert Sill is Sill-Indiana's sole incorporator, sole shareholder and sole director. In late 1986 and early 1987, a public adjuster from the Sill corporation, who was not licensed in Michigan, came to Michigan to assist a public adjuster licensed in Michigan. In the early 1990s, petitioners in this case applied for Michigan public adjuster licenses, stating on their applications that they would be representing an adjusting firm and supplying the name and address of Sill-Indiana. Petitioners received their licenses in 1992.