The No-Fault Act (NFA); MCL 500.3009(1); Applicability of the increased minimum bodily injury or death liability limits for no-fault insurance policies enacted in 2019 PA 21 & 22; Progressive Marathon Ins Co v Pena

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment (see eJournal # 80036 in the 8/24/23 edition), which held “that the increased minimum bodily injury or death liability limits for no-fault” policies enacted in 2019 PA 21 and 22 “do not apply to policies delivered or issued for delivery before” 7/2/20, and remanded the case to that court for further consideration. The court held that by “delivering a policy that did not comply with the minimum liability limits specified in Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b)” of MCL 500.3009, defendant-Progressive “issued a policy that failed to comply with the minimum requirements of the” NFA. The court noted that in reaching this conclusion, it rejected “the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the date ranges in Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) . . . modify the verb phrase ‘must not be delivered or issued for delivery’ in Subsection (1).” It found this reading was “contrary to the statute’s plain language and organization.” The court determined that “Subsection (1) of MCL 500.3009 requires that a policy may not be delivered or issued for delivery unless it provides all of the minimum liability coverage prescribed in Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b), while Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) specify what coverage level is to be provided and differentiate between the required coverage level before [7/2/20], and after” 7/1/20. It concluded that the “general effective date of 2019 PA 21 and 2019 PA 22—[6/11/19]—governs, such that policies delivered or issued for delivery after that date must comply with ‘all’ the coverage requirements in Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) unless the insured selects a different coverage level under Subsection (5).” In addition, it rejected “Progressive’s argument that this interpretation is inconsistent with Subsection (1)’s provision that it is subject to Subsections (5) to (8).”

Dissenting, Justice Zahra (joined by Justice Welch) would affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment because he agreed with the panel that the Court of Appeals’ decision in Pena was dispositive. He determined that the Court of Appeals in Pena “correctly concluded that the increased bodily injury minimum liability limits for no-fault insurance policies enacted in 2019 PA 22 do not apply to insurance policies issued or delivered before” 7/2/20.