Opinion ID: 830914
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the majority's critical errors

Text: In my view, the majority goes awry in at least five significant ways. First, it misapplies the applicable standards of review. Under the first prong of Luttrell, the proper inquiry is not whether insurance scoring is permissible under the Insurance Code. [5] The Code says nothing about insurance scoring. The relevant inquiry is whether rules banning the use of insurance scoring in setting insurance rates are within the matters covered by MCL 500.210. [6] Second, by considering and rejecting each argument offered in support of the OFIS rules, the majority improperly shifts the burden of proof to defendant. [7] Third, the majority fails to give respectful consideration to defendant's interpretation of the applicable statutes as In re Rovas Complaint requires. [8] Fourth, the majority errs by not confining its review of the record to conform to its harmless error analysis. The majority holds that even if the trial court erred by not limiting its review to the administrative record, the error was harmless because there is ample evidence in that record to support the trial court's conclusion that insurance scoring is permissible under the Insurance Code. [9] Yet the majority subsequently expands its review by referring to evidence outside that record. The majority has it backwards. If the circuit court erred by creating its own evidentiary record, its conclusion must be wholly supportable on appeal by evidence in the administrative record. For an error to be considered harmless, the conclusion reached in the case must be supportable notwithstanding the alleged error. [10] If the majority deems it necessary, as evidenced by its analysis, to examine both the administrative record and the circuit court record to support its conclusion, the error cannot be harmless. [11] After conducting a proper harmless error analysis, I reach the opposite conclusion from the majority. Any procedural error was harmless because the evidence in both the administrative record and the circuit court record failed to establish that the OFIS rules are invalid. Thus, my inquiry gives plaintiffs the benefit of every doubt and examines the evidence in both records. The result is that, if a procedural error occurred, it was harmless. By expanding the scope of its review, the majority fails to accord defendant the same treatment, thereby making its harmless-error analysis erroneous. Fifth and finally, the majority's overly broad review of the record goes beyond even the administrative and circuit court records. It relies on sources outside any record provided to this Court. [12] These errors are crucial to the outcome of the case. [13] As the discussion of the merits of plaintiffs' claims demonstrates, much conflicting evidence exists on whether insurance scoring is predictive of loss. The majority appears willing to overrule defendant's decision simply because it disagrees with it. However, when the proper level of deference is applied, it is irrelevant whether the majority would decide the issue differently. Rather, after examining the conflicting evidence, one can only conclude that defendant did not exceed her authority by promulgating the rules banning the practice.