Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
December 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
131987 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
DAWN MARIE MILLER, Robert P. Young, Jr.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
and
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH,
Intervening Plaintiff,
v SC: 131987
COA: 259504
Washtenaw CC: 02-000284-NF
PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION,
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC
INSURANCE COMPANY, and PROGRESSIVE
MICHIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants,
and
CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________/
On November 7, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave
to appeal the July 20, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the
application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the
questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
MARKMAN, J., concurs and states as follows:
“[T]he person named in the policy” may be entitled to personal protection
insurance benefits under the no-fault act. MCL 500.3114(1). Plaintiff contends that she
is “the person named in the policy” in which her parents are the named insureds because
2
she is listed as an occasional driver on the declarations sheet, and the policy states that
the “Declarations, endorsements and application are hereby incorporated into and made a
part of this policy.” However, the following statement immediately precedes the portion
of the declarations sheet that lists plaintiff as an occasional driver: “Your Policy Premium
Is Based On The Following Information Which Is Not Part Of The Policy.” Therefore, it
is clear that the portion of the declarations sheet that lists plaintiff as an occasional driver
is not part of the policy, and thus plaintiff is not “the person named in the policy.”
Because plaintiff is not “the person named in the policy,” it is unnecessary to address
whether it is possible for a person who is not a named insured in the policy to be “the
person named in the policy” under MCL 500.3114(1). For these reasons, I concur in this
Court’s order denying leave to appeal.
WEAVER, J., dissents and states as follows:
I dissent from the majority’s denial of leave to appeal in this case. I would grant
leave to appeal to consider whether plaintiff can recover personal injury protection
benefits from the defendant pursuant to the insurance policy and the plain language MCL
500.3114(1) of the no-fault act.
MCL 500.3114(1) states that a “person named in the [automobile insurance]
policy” is entitled to personal injury protection benefits. Plaintiff in this case is a
nonresident child of the policy owners and is listed as an occasional driver on the policy
declarations page. The insurance policy has a clause incorporating the declarations page
as part of the policy. The issue in this case is whether MCL 500.3114(1) requires that the
insurance company provide personal injury protection coverage for a person who is
named in the policy but is not a named insured.
The question presented in this case is a jurisprudentially significant one for no-
fault insurance litigants, and I would grant leave to appeal for consideration of this issue.
CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., join the statement of WEAVER, J.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
December 21, 2007 _________________________________________
p1218 Clerk