In Brickey v. McCarver, et. al., ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (4/17/18), the Plaintiff, Tracy Brickey, sustained serious injury after he was struck by an automobile driven by Vincent McCarver on US 223. Plaintiff brought suit against Vincent McCarver for recovery of third-party damages. Mr. Brickey also sued CR Motors for McCarver’s negligence under Michigan’s owner’s liability statute and the doctrine of negligent entrustment. Plaintiff’s wife, Brandy Brickey, joined the action claiming loss of consortium. Importantly, at the time of the incident, Mr. Brickey was operating an uninsured motorcycle.
Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition claiming that pursuant to MCL 500.3135(2)(c), Plaintiff should be precluded from recovery since his motorcycle was uninsured. The trial court subsequently granted the motion for summary disposition, vesting its opinion in the ruling of Braden v Spencer, 100 Mich App 523 (1980). The Court of Appeals reversed.
The Brickey Court determined that the judiciary may not read into a statute what is not within the meaning of the Legislature’s intent. MCL 500.3135(2)(c) unambiguously states that “Damages shall 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 at the time the injury occurred.” MCL 500.3101(2)(i)(i) states that the definition of motor vehicle “does not include any of the following: (i) A motorcycle.” Since the language is unambiguous and explicitly excludes motorcycles as motor vehicles, the Brickey Court determined that the trial court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s claims.
In coming to this conclusion, the Court of Appeals highlighted the fact that while MCL 500.3103 does require the owner of a motorcycle to maintain security, the plain language of MCL 500.3135(2)(c) only refers to MCL 500.3101, and makes no mention of MCL 500.3103. Because of this, the Court determined that it is for the Legislature, not the Court, to address the policy-making considerations that are inherent in statutory law-making. It is the responsibility of the judiciary, on the other hand, to only construe the plain language, and refrain from impermissible judicial construction of an unambiguous statute. The Court noted that MCL 500.3113, which limits entitlement of certain persons to recover 1st party personal injury protection benefits, specifically excludes operators and owners of “motor vehicles or motorcycles” which did not have security in effect pursuant to MCL 500.3101 or 3103. Consistent with Michigan v. McQueen, 293 Mich App 644, 672 (2011), the Brickey Court found that the Legislature’s omission of a term in one portion of a statute that is contained in another should be construed as intentional.
The Brickey Court further determined that the trial court erred in relying on Braden because the Braden decision was not precedentially binding, and did not require “motorcycle” to be read into every provision of MCL 500.3135, nor did the Braden decision have any bearing on MCL 500.3135(2)(c). The Brickey Court noted that at the time of the Braden decision, MCL 500.3135(2)(c) was not even in existence, since the provision was added to the No-Fault Act 15 years after Braden. Further, in Braden, the Plaintiff did not sue to recover “noneconomic damages”, but instead sued for property damage to his motorcycle resulting from a collision with an automobile owned and operated by the defendant. The Brickey Court determined that Braden was only concerned with MCL 500.3135(3), which has nothing to do with a plaintiff’s right to recover damages, and instead has everything to do with defendant’s liability irrespective of the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s mode of travel. As such, Braden simply did not apply to the facts, nor the statutory questions, presented in the Brickey matter.
The language of MCL 500.3135(2)(c) is unambiguous: individuals injured while operating a motor vehicle that is both owned by them and uninsured in violation of MCL 500.3101 are not entitled to recover damages. Motorcycles are not motor vehicles under the no-fault act. No additional inquiry, or construction of the statute is necessary. Accordingly, MCL 500.3135(2)(c) does not limit the right of uninsured motorcyclists to recover third-party damages.
