James Perkins v. Auto Owners Insurance Company

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan November 7, 2014 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice 147640-1 Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack JAMES PERKINS, David F. Viviano, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices v SC: 147640

COA: 310473

Grand Traverse CC: AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE 2011-028699-NF

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant, and

STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY

COMPANY and STATE FARM

MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendants, and

PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee. ____________________________________/

JAMES PERKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v SC: 147641

COA: 312674

Grand Traverse CC: AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE 2011-028699-NF

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant, and

STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY

COMPANY, STATE FARM MUTUAL

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, and PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants. ____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MARKMAN, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company argued that because plaintiff, an out-of-state driver, was injured while operating a vehicle that was not insured by an insurer authorized to issue automobile liability insurance in Michigan, he was not entitled to personal protection insurance benefits under Michigan law. MCL 500.3113(c). Despite defendant’s argument ultimately having been rejected by the trial court, defendant bore the obligation to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees only if its argument was “unreasonable.” MCL 500.3148(1). Thus, the dispute here does not pertain to whether defendant’s argument should have prevailed, but only to whether it was “unreasonable.” In my judgment, it was not in the slightest.

I, Larry S. Royster, 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. November 7, 2014 h1104

Clerk