When is a non-resident vehicle owner prohibited from maintaining a 3rd-party bodily injury claim in Michigan for failure to have Michigan no-fault insurance?
This article discusses under what circumstance a nonresident owner or registrant of a motor vehicle who operates that vehicle in Michigan for an aggregate of 30 or more days in a calendar year is precluded from maintaining a 3rd party auto negligence claim for bodily injuries because the owner or registrant failed to carry Michigan no-fault insurance.
MCL §500.3101(1) states:
…. the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state shall maintain security for payment of benefits under personal protection insurance and property protection insurance as required under this chapter, and residual liability insurance. Security is only required to be in effect during the period the motor vehicle is driven or moved on a highway.
MCL §500.3102 states:
(1) A nonresident owner or registrant of a motor vehicle or motorcycle not registered in the state shall not operate or permit the motor vehicle or motorcycle to be operated in this state for an aggregate of more than 30 days in any calendar year unless he or she continuously maintains security [i.e. no-fault insurance] for the payment of benefits pursuant to [the No Fault Statute].
MCL §500.3135(2), the “no-pay, no-play” statute states:
Damages must not be assessed in favor of a party who was operating his or her own vehicle at the time the injury occurred and did not have in effect for that motor vehicle the security required by section 3101(1) at the time the injury occurred.
In Alexander vs Kubaki, an unpublished Court of Appeal case decided in 2023, the defendant in a 3rd party auto negligence case sought summary disposition because Plaintiff violated MCL §500.3102; i.e. Plaintiff’s vehicle was registered to his stepfather in Georgia, had Georgia plates, Plaintiff was an Ohio resident but drove to Michigan daily for work and did not have Michigan no-fault insurance in contravention of MCL §500.3102.
However, the trial court in Alexander denied the defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition and the Court of Appeals affirmed that denial. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the no- pay, no- play statute, §500.3135(2)(C), applies only to those who fail to maintain no-fault insurance “as required by MCL §500.3101(1).” The COA said:
…. Defendant contends that because MCL 500.3135(2)(C)’s bar on damages applies to those who fail to maintain no-fault insurance as required by MCL 500.3101(1), we should conclude that the Legislature also intended for MCL 500.3135(2)(C) to apply to those who fail to maintain no-fault insurance as required by MCL 500.3102(1).
*****
Here, MCL 500.3135(2)(C) is not ambiguous. It unequivocally applies only if the party failed to maintain no-fault insurance as required by MCL 500.3101(1). We may not read language into an unambiguous statute, and we cannot insert a provision into a statute on the basis that it would have been wise of the Legislature to do so. [Citations omitted.]
Applying the unambiguous language of the statute, application of MCL 500.3135(2)(C) is limited to vehicles that fail to carry insurance as required by MCL 500.3101(1), and so we need not resolve whether plaintiff was required
to maintain no-fault insurance under MCL 500.3102(1). Instead, this appeal turns solely on whether plaintiff’s vehicle was “required to be registered in this state” such that the lack of Michigan no-fault insurance on the vehicle violated MCL 500.3101(1), and in turn, triggered MCL 500.3135(2)(C)’s bar on noneconomic damages.
The COA in Alexander concluded:
…. application of MCL 500.3135(2)(C) is limited to vehicles that fail to carry insurance as required by MCL 500.3101(1), and so we need not resolve whether plaintiff was required to maintain no-fault insurance under MCL 500.3102(1). Instead, this appeal turns solely on whether plaintiff’s vehicle was “required to be registered in this state” such that the lack of Michigan no-fault insurance on the vehicle violated MCL 500.3101(1), and in turn, triggered MCL 500.3135(2)(c)’s bar on noneconomic damages.
The 2024 published COA opinion in Goings v Giacomantonio-Snow addressed the identical issue as in Alexander and reached the same conclusion. A violation of MCL §500.3102 does not preclude a 3rd party auto negligence case per the no-pay, no-play statute because that statute refers to a violation of MCL §500.3101, not §500.3102. The focus must be on whether the vehicle was “required to be registered” in Michigan. The COA decision in Goings adopted the Alexander ruling and reasoning:
…. MCL 500. 3135(2)(c) unequivocally states that the bar to the recovery of damages applies only if the plaintiff failed to maintain no fault insurance under section 3101(1), and we will not read language into an unambiguous statute or add provisions when the statute is clear. [Citation omitted.] We agree with the Alexander Court that under the plain, unambiguous language of the statute, only a violation of MCL 500.3101(1) triggers MCL 500. 3135(2)(c)’s bar on the recovery of noneconomic damages.
According to the unpublished decision in Alexander v Kubacki and the published decision in Goings a claimant’s violation of MCL §500.3102 is not dispositive of whether a claimant is barred from maintaining a 3rd party auto negligence case under the no-pay, no-play statue. Rather, you must determine if the vehicle “was required to be registered in this state” and failed to have Michigan no-fault insurance. MCL §257.243 is the main source of determining when a vehicle must be registered in Michigan.
Read the entire case:
Goings v Giacomantonio-Snow
About Alexander & Angelas, P.C.
Attorney Peter A. Angelas represents defendants in civil liability litigation across Michigan. His practice areas include insurance defense litigation, premises liability, motor carrier (trucking) defense, corporate and commercial litigation, construction defect litigation, auto negligence, insurance coverage disputes, emergency casualty response services, alternative dispute resolution, subrogation claims, workers’ compensation, employment law, and liquor liability.
Mr. Angelas practices in all state and federal courts in Michigan, including Wayne County (Detroit), Macomb County (Mount Clemens), Oakland County (Pontiac), Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor), and Genesee County (Flint).
A 24/7 Emergency Hotline is available (800-219-0007) for trucking and insurance company clients. When an accident requires an immediate response to protect evidence, members of the firm quickly launch an investigation with the assistance of well-qualified accident investigators, crash re-constructionists, mechanical engineers, civil evidence photographers, and independent adjusters positioned throughout Michigan.
Image by freepik