By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
The No-Fault Act does not bar a plaintiff from recovering noneconomic damages for injuries if a driver’s vehicle was registered in another state at the time of a crash, a unanimous Court of Appeals panel ruled Thursday.
In a published opinion released Friday, written by Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett and joined by Judge Christopher Yates and Judge Stephen Borrello, the panel in Goings v. Giacomantonio-Snow (COA Docket No. 366074) reversed the Wayne Circuit Court’s grant of summary disposition to the defendant, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The trial court granted summary to the defendant on the grounds that the plaintiff cannot be awarded damages because he failed to maintain Michigan no-fault insurance on a vehicle he drove in Michigan for more than 30 days during the year.
The plaintiff, however, asserted that although he spent significant time in Michigan, he was a resident of Ohio who registered and insured his vehicle in that state.
Upon appeal, Garrett wrote that the No-Fault Act does not bar him from recovering noneconomic damages under those circumstances.
“The trial court concluded that, although it is not mentioned, a violation of (the statute) triggers the bar on tort damages under (another provision),” Garrett wrote. “We hold that this ruling was legally erroneous and we agree with Goings that the trial court should not have summarily dismissed his claim in favor of Giacomantonio-Snow.”
The Legislature’s intent to bar certain plaintiffs from recovering tort damages was evidenced by the plain language of MCL 500.3135(2)(c) itself, she added.
“The statute explicitly states that tort damages must not be awarded to a plaintiff who failed to maintain Michigan no-fault insurance under one specific no-fault provision, MCL 500.3101(1), which requires the owner of a vehicle that must be registered in Michigan to maintain Michigan no-fault insurance,” Garrett wrote. “In drafting MCL 500.3135(2)(c), the Legislature chose to reference a single statutory section to trigger the bar on the recovery of tort damages, and chose not to reference any other statutory section to trigger that bar. It would violate fundamental principles of statutory interpretation and alter the plain legislative intent to read into the statute an additional prohibition on the recovery of damages by citing a statutory section not set forth in the unambiguous language of MCL 500.3135(2)(c).”
The trial court was also in error to rely on the 2004 ruling in McGhee v. Helsel to support the conclusion that a nonresident who violates the no-fault statute is barred from recovering tort damages, the opinion said.
There was also a genuine issue of material fact regarding the plaintiff’s place of residence. That issue required further proceedings, Garrett added.
“Evidence showed that Goings worked in Michigan for 50 to 60 hours a week, but that he maintained a home in Ohio where his minor son lived and attended school. Goings paid Ohio state taxes and was registered to vote in Ohio, but he also spent nights at his girlfriend’s house in Michigan,” Garrett wrote. “Even Goings himself gave conflicting statements about whether he spent most of each week in Ohio or Michigan before the accident. Because reasonable minds might differ on the issue of whether Goings was a resident or nonresident of Michigan for purposes of MCL 500.3101(1) which, in turn, could bar his claim for damages under MCL 500.3135(2)(c), the trial court erred by granting summary disposition to Giacomantonio-Snow.”
Gongwer News Service
The No-Fault Act does not bar a plaintiff from recovering noneconomic damages for injuries if a driver’s vehicle was registered in another state at the time of a crash, a unanimous Court of Appeals panel ruled Thursday.
In a published opinion released Friday, written by Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett and joined by Judge Christopher Yates and Judge Stephen Borrello, the panel in Goings v. Giacomantonio-Snow (COA Docket No. 366074) reversed the Wayne Circuit Court’s grant of summary disposition to the defendant, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The trial court granted summary to the defendant on the grounds that the plaintiff cannot be awarded damages because he failed to maintain Michigan no-fault insurance on a vehicle he drove in Michigan for more than 30 days during the year.
The plaintiff, however, asserted that although he spent significant time in Michigan, he was a resident of Ohio who registered and insured his vehicle in that state.
Upon appeal, Garrett wrote that the No-Fault Act does not bar him from recovering noneconomic damages under those circumstances.
“The trial court concluded that, although it is not mentioned, a violation of (the statute) triggers the bar on tort damages under (another provision),” Garrett wrote. “We hold that this ruling was legally erroneous and we agree with Goings that the trial court should not have summarily dismissed his claim in favor of Giacomantonio-Snow.”
The Legislature’s intent to bar certain plaintiffs from recovering tort damages was evidenced by the plain language of MCL 500.3135(2)(c) itself, she added.
“The statute explicitly states that tort damages must not be awarded to a plaintiff who failed to maintain Michigan no-fault insurance under one specific no-fault provision, MCL 500.3101(1), which requires the owner of a vehicle that must be registered in Michigan to maintain Michigan no-fault insurance,” Garrett wrote. “In drafting MCL 500.3135(2)(c), the Legislature chose to reference a single statutory section to trigger the bar on the recovery of tort damages, and chose not to reference any other statutory section to trigger that bar. It would violate fundamental principles of statutory interpretation and alter the plain legislative intent to read into the statute an additional prohibition on the recovery of damages by citing a statutory section not set forth in the unambiguous language of MCL 500.3135(2)(c).”
The trial court was also in error to rely on the 2004 ruling in McGhee v. Helsel to support the conclusion that a nonresident who violates the no-fault statute is barred from recovering tort damages, the opinion said.
There was also a genuine issue of material fact regarding the plaintiff’s place of residence. That issue required further proceedings, Garrett added.
“Evidence showed that Goings worked in Michigan for 50 to 60 hours a week, but that he maintained a home in Ohio where his minor son lived and attended school. Goings paid Ohio state taxes and was registered to vote in Ohio, but he also spent nights at his girlfriend’s house in Michigan,” Garrett wrote. “Even Goings himself gave conflicting statements about whether he spent most of each week in Ohio or Michigan before the accident. Because reasonable minds might differ on the issue of whether Goings was a resident or nonresident of Michigan for purposes of MCL 500.3101(1) which, in turn, could bar his claim for damages under MCL 500.3135(2)(c), the trial court erred by granting summary disposition to Giacomantonio-Snow.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
