Michigan Supreme Court Rules on Retroactivity of 2019 No-Fault Amendments
On July 31, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the new fee schedule and attendant care limitations contained in MCL 500.3157 do not apply retroactively to PIP insureds who sustained accidental bodily injuries prior to the effective date of the 2019 No-Fault amendments. In Andary et al v USAA Casualty Insurance Company and Citizens Insurance Company of America, the Court reasoned that the No-Fault insurance policy and disputed portions of the No-Fault Act existing at the time of the injury control the entitlement to PIP benefits, not the amended provisions.
In 2019, the Michigan Legislature made significant changes to the Michigan No-Fault Act, introducing tiered PIP coverages as an option to the previously required life-time medical expenses, as well as other changes. The amendments at issue in this case regard MCL 500.3157, specifically the reduction in reimbursement rates and limitation of family-provided attendant care to 56 hours per week. Reviewing the history of the No-Fault Act, the Michigan Supreme Court noted that, with this change, “this will often mean that necessary medical care can only be provided by a third-party agency or that accident victims who require 24-hour care must be moved into nursing homes or similar facilities because family members can no longer be compensated for providing care beyond the 56-hour cap.” Footnote 6 advises that Amicus Briefs filed by the Michigan Osteopathic Association, the Brain Injury Association of Michigan, and individuals suffering catastrophic injuries from automobile accidents before 2019 noted that patients have died or experienced serious health declines since the implementation of these amendments because required care was often provided by family members and providers who have historically served this population are “understaffed and closing in large numbers.”
The combined cases include two catastrophically injured passengers from accidents in 2014 and 1990, who were covered persons, but not named insureds, under No-Fault policies providing life-time PIP medical benefits which reimbursed “all reasonable fees for reasonably necessary products and services and accommodations for a covered person’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation.” Plaintiff Andary had been prescribed in-home attendant care services at 36 hours per day, due to needing multiple caregivers, with the services historically being provided by family members. Plaintiff Krueger resided at the Plaintiff Eisenhower Center, a facility specializing in rehabilitative care for individuals suffering traumatic brain injuries, since 1997.
The Plaintiffs filed an 18-count Complaint against USAA and Citizens, the PIP insurers for Plaintiff Andary and Plaintiff Krueger, respectively. At the circuit court, in lieu of answering the Complaint, the Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), arguing that the 2019 No-Fault amendments were constitutional, that alleged privacy and property interests were not fundamental rights for due process or equal protection purposes, that alleged Contracts Clause violations were invalid because PIP benefits were governed by statute rather than by contract, and lack of standing. The circuit court, framing the counts into Contracts Clause claims, substantive due process claims, and equal protection claims, ruled against the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs, after being denied reconsideration by the circuit court and a bypass application by the Michigan Supreme Court before the Court of Appeals resolved their appeal, appealed each of the rulings in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that the amendments to MCL 500.3157(7) and (10) cannot apply retroactively to an individual whose injury and right to No-Fault benefits vested before the effective date of the amendments. Noting that its decision on retroactivity effectively granted Plaintiff Andary and Plaintiff Krueger full relief, they no longer had standing for the constitutional issues. Regarding Plaintiff Eisenhower Center, the Court held that its claims could not be resolved at the early stage of proceedings and remanded its claim for discovery.
In the Court of Appeals, the dissenting opinion stated that the challenged amendments were not being applied retroactively since they only applied to care or services provided after the effective date, reasoning, in part, that the right to the benefit does not accrue until an expense is incurred. Further, even if the amendments were being applied retroactively, it would be allowable since there was a clear legislative intent for retrospective application to such insureds.
In its analysis, the Michigan Supreme Court recognized that the Legislature may retroactively impair vested rights if it clearly manifests the intent for retroactive application. Applying the four factor LaFontaine test, the Court determined that the application of the No-Fault Amendments would constitute a retroactive reduction of vested contractual rights to receive uncapped PIP benefits pursuant to the insurance policies and No-Fault Act at the time of injury. However, it decided that the Legislature did not clearly state that it intended the new fee schedule or new attendant care limitations to apply retroactively to individuals with a vested contractual right to PIP benefits under the pre-amendment No-Fault statutes, thus those provisions cannot apply to any insured who was injured while covered by an insurance policy issued before June 11, 2019.
In reaching its decision, the Michigan Supreme Court distinguished the No-Fault Act as being both contractual and statutory, unlike the purely statutory workers compensation system with its presumption against retroactivity to avoid a vested right from preventing the legislature from changing an existing law. The Court also reasoned that the scope of PIP benefits under a No-Fault policy and the No-Fault Act vests at the time of injury, rejecting the Defendants’ argument that it vests when medical care is provided. In footnote 16, the Court recognized limited circumstances where an insurer could rescind a No-Fault policy after an accident occurs, citing Bazzi v Sentinel Ins Co, 502 Mich 390, 408-412 (2018), as an equitable remedy rather than an absolute right, in instances of material misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the insured, but emphasized this does not stand for the proposition that an insurance company can unilaterally change benefits owed for a properly purchased insurance policy after an accident. The Court also relied on a 1918 United States Supreme Court decision, Von Hoffman v City of Quincy, 71 US 535, 550 (1866), and Michigan contract law, holding that the laws in place at the time a contract is executed form a part of the contract. Emphasizing that the scope of PIP benefits vest at the time of an injury, the Court stated that “holding to the contrary would be nonsensical,” noting that a covered person is not required to continually renew a No-Fault policy or pay additional consideration to an insurer post-injury as a prerequisite to continue to receive PIP benefits after an accident. In footnote 21, the Court disagreed with the dissent’s assertion that the contractual right held by PIP insureds was “less than a vested right” and suggestion that the right to receive PIP benefits for future medical expenses for catastrophic injuries was “a mere expectation,” stating that the reality was that the injuries would require significant medical care with the only uncertainties being the amount of the allowable medical expenses and whether the specific expenses or care were reasonable and necessary considering the nature of the injury.
On the constitutional issues, the Michigan Supreme Court held that Plaintiff Andary and Plaintiff Krueger lacked standing to challenge the prospective application of the 2019 amendments because, as held, they were not subject to those amendments. The Court also found that Plaintiff Eisenhower Center, which did not plead such on its own behalf, lacked standing to challenge the prospective application of the limitation for family provided attendant care on behalf of nonparty past and present patients and medical providers. In that Plaintiff Eisenhower Center did make due process and equal protection challenges to the prospective application of the reduced payment provisions, under a rational basis review, the Court found that the new fee schedule was reasonably and rationally related to the legitimate legislative purpose of lowering costs.
At footnote 30, the Michigan Supreme Court made sure to limit its decision to individuals entitled to PIP benefits as a named insured or a covered individual under a policy. The Court expressly indicated that it was not deciding whether individuals with a purely statutory claim, such as under MCL 500.311(4) or MCL 500.3115, are entitled to the same protections. This is a reference to the amendments changing priority for occupants and non-occupants, who are not covered under a PIP policy, to the assigned claims plan.
Joel Ashton, a partner in our Livonia office, focuses his practice on insurance defense, including Michigan No-Fault claims (PIP, automobile negligence, uninsured/underinsured motorist), as well as premises liability and general negligence; real estate and community association law; municipal law; and discrimination cases. His practice also includes the defense of contract and liability claims, contract interpretation issues, subrogation claims involving automobile, fire and casualty, commercial and related coverage. Mr. Ashton maintains an AV Preeminent Rating from Martindale-Hubbell, which is the highest possible rating an attorney can achieve for both ethical standards and legal ability. He may be reached at (734) 261-2400 or jashton@cmda-law.com.
CMDA Law
Recent Posts
- Jim Acho Named 2024 MiLW Leader in the Law
- Richards’ Article on the Benefits and Challenges of the Ladybird Deed Featured in Urban Aging News
- Jim Acho Guests on “SportsWise” with NFL Network’s Gabe Feldman to Break Down NCAA Lawsuit
- Important Reminder: Under the CTA, a BOIR is Required to be Filed by January 1, 2025
- Jim Acho Guest At Premier For New Detroit Lions Book
Recent Comments
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- November 2021
- October 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- October 2010
- August 2010
- January 2010
- January 2009
- September 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
Categories
- 50th Anniversary
- Allan C. Vander Laan
- Appeals and Litigation
- Appeals and Litigation Articles
- Barbara M. Moore
- Business Law
- Business Law Articles
- Carol A. Smith
- Christopher G. Schultz
- Community Association & Real Estate Law Practice Group
- Community Association and Real Estate Law Articles
- Community Association Law
- Daniel W. Ferris
- Douglas Curlew
- Education Law
- Education Law Articles
- Employment and Labor Law
- Employment and Labor Law Articles
- Estate Planning and Elder Law
- Estate Planning and Elder Law Articles
- Firm News
- Gary D. Klein
- Gerald C. Davis
- Gregory A. Roberts
- Gregory R. Grant
- Haider A. Kazim
- Insurance Defense
- Insurance Defense Articles
- Isa M. Kasoga
- Jacklyn P. Paletta
- James R. Acho
- James W. Taylor II
- Jeffrey R. Clark
- Joel Ashton
- John "Jay" Gillen
- John D Gwyn
- John M. McFarland
- Joshua J. Cervantes
- Kenneth M. Gonko
- Kevin J. Campbell
- Kimberly M. Coschino
- Kristen L. Rewa
- Latest News
- Law Enforcement Defense and Litigation Articles
- Law Enforcement Litigation and Defense
- Linda Davis Friedland
- Litigation
- Margaret A. Lourdes
- Matthew C. Wayne
- Matthew W. Cross
- Michael O. Cummings
- Michelle L. Richards
- Municipal Law
- Municipal Law Articles
- News & Events for Business Law
- News & Events for Municipal Law
- News Archive
- Norman E. Richards
- Owen J. Cummings
- Patrick R. Sturdy
- Plaintiff's Personal Injury
- Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Articles
- Presentations & Articles
- Published Articles
- Ray E. Richards II
- Real Estate Law
- Robert J. Hahn
- Robert L. Blamer
- Ronald G. Acho
- Ryan D. Miller
- Sarah L. Overton
- Shane R. Nolan
- Stanley I. Okoli
- Stephen C. Johnston
- Suzanne P. Bartos
- Timothy S. Ferrand
- Uncategorized
- Utility Law
- Utility Law Articles
Leave a Reply