CPAN Post-Remand Court of Appeals Supplemental Brief

176 Pages·2016·4.28 MB·English

by  Brian Wolfe

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

COALITION PROTECTING AUTO
NO-FAULT (CPAN), MARTHA E.
LEVANDOWSKI, GERALD E. & MARY
ELLEN CLARK, A. MICHAEL AND PAULINA Court of Appeals Case No. 314310
M. DELLER, and M. THOMAS DELLER,

Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Ingham County Circuit Court
v. Case Nos. 12-68-CZ, 12-659-CZ
(Consolidated)

THE MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC Honorable Clinton Canady III
CLAIMS ASSOCIATION (MCCA),

Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

and

BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
MICHIGAN (BIAMI), RICHARD K. &
ILENE IKENS, DR. KENNETH & SUSAN
WISSER, GREGORY A. & KAREN M.
WOLFE, AND OTHER SIMILARLY
SITUATED MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE
POLICY HOLDERS

Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.

THE MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC
CLAIMS ASSOCIATION (MCCA),

Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

POST-REMAND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
COALITION PROTECTING AUTO NO-FAULT (“CPAN”)
AND NAMED INDIVIDUALS

THE CROSS-APPEAL REQUESTS A RULING THAT A MICHIGAN STATUTE
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND INVALID

{36274/1/D1019979.DOCX;1}
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... iii
INDEX OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................. vii
STATEMENT REGARDING BASIS FOR JURISDICTION .................................................... viii
STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................................................... ix
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS AND FACTS ................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5
I. The MCCA is a “Public Body” Subject to the Information Disclosure Requirements
of FOIA, As Defined in Section 2(d)(iv) of FOIA, MCL 15.232(d)(iv). ........................... 5
A. The MCCA is a Public Body Because It Was Created By State Authority. ........... 6
B. The MCCA Is a Public Body Because It Is Primarily Funded Through State
Authority. ................................................................................................................ 7
C. The Enactment of MCL 500.134 Confirms the MCCA’s Status as a Public
Body. ..................................................................................................................... 10
II. The League General Decision, Holding That the MCCA Is Not a State Agency,
Does Not Alter the Conclusion That the MCCA Is a Public Body Subject To FOIA. ..... 11
A. The Issue in League General Has Nothing Whatsoever To Do With the
Issue in the Case at Bar. ........................................................................................ 11
B. The Holding in League General That the MCCA Is Not a State Agency
Has No Relevance to Whether the MCCA Is a Public Body. ............................... 13
III. The Drafter’s Note in Public Act 1988, No. 349, §2, Which Was Written In
Conjunction With the Enactment of MCL 500.134(4) and States in Part That the
MCCA Shall Not Be Treated As a State Agency or Public Body, Does Not Alter
the Conclusion that the MCCA Is a Public Body Within the Meaning of FOIA. ............ 15
A. The Language of the Drafter’s Note Was Never Inserted Into the Statutory
Text of MCL 500.134 When It Easily Could Have Been, Thereby Evidencing
the Clear Choice of the Legislature That the Content of the Drafter’s Note
Should Not Acquire the Force of Law. ................................................................. 20
B. The Drafter’s Note is Actually in Conflict With the Specific Language That
Was Inserted Into MCL 500.134, Which Language Clearly Demonstrates
The Legislature’s Intent To Treat the Issue of the MCCA’s Status As a
“State Agency” Differently From the Issue of the MCCA’s Status as a
“Public Body”. ...................................................................................................... 20
C. The Only Historical Controversy Referenced By the Drafter’s Note That
Was the Impetus for the Enactment of PA 349 Was the League General
Decision, Which Dealt With the Administrative Procedures Act, Not Any
Controversy That Related to the Operation of FOIA. ........................................... 22
i

{36274/1/D1019979.DOCX;1}
D. If the Drafter’s Note Is Held to Redefine Public Body To Exclude the
MCCA, It Violates art 4, §25 of the Michigan Constitution Because It
Amends FOIA Without Reenacting FOIA To Reflect the Amendment. .............. 23
IV. Assuming That the MCCA Is a Public Body Subject To FOIA, MCL 500.134(4),
Which Purports to Exempt “a Record” Of the MCCA From FOIA, Is Unconstitutional
Because It Was Enacted In a Manner Which Violates art 4, §25 Of the Michigan
Constitution. ...................................................................................................................... 23
A. Art 4, §25 Is An Integral Part Of the Democratic Process In Michigan and
Must Be Enforced As Written............................................................................... 24
B. The Principal Supreme Court Decision Controlling the Issue At Bar Is Alan v
Wayne County, Which Illustrates the Type Of Legislative Enactments That
Violate art 4, §25................................................................................................... 27
1. The Exceptions To art 4, §25. ................................................................... 28
2. Alan v Wayne County Adopts Mok and Limits the Exceptions. ............... 32
3. More Recent Applications Of Alan. .......................................................... 36
C. MCL 500.134(4) Amends FOIA Without Republishing the Relevant
Provisions In FOIA and the Authority To Proceed In That Manner Cannot
Constitutionally Be Conferred By MCL 15.243(1)(d). ........................................ 39
D. The “Act Complete In Itself Exception” To art 4, §25 Does Not Save
MCL 500.134(4) From Unconstitutionality. ......................................................... 42
E. The “Amendment By Implication” Exception To art 4, §25 Does Not Save
MCL 500.134(4) From Unconstitutionality. ......................................................... 44
F. MCL 500.134(4) Is a Clear Deviation From the Way the Legislature
Previously Enacted Amendments To FOIA, Further Illustrating Its
Constitutional Infirmity. ....................................................................................... 45
G. There Are Serious and Deleterious Consequences For Michigan Citizens and
Businesses If the Legislative Tactic Employed In the Enactment Of MCL
15.243(1)(d) and MCL 500.134(4) Were To Be Sanctioned By This Court. ....... 48
V. If the Drafter’s Note Amends MCL 500.134 To Exclude the MCCA From the
Public Body Definition Of FOIA, It Is Unconstitutional Because It Was Enacted
In a Manner Which Violates art 4, §25 Of the Michigan Constitution. ............................ 50
RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................................................................. 50

ii

{36274/1/D1019979.DOCX;1}
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of 1972 PA 294,
389 Mich 441; 208 NW2d 469 (1973)................................................................................ 24, 25
AFT Michigan v Public School Employees Retirement Sys,
297 Mich App 597; 825 NW2d 595 (2012) .............................................................................. 41
Alan v Wayne County,
388 Mich 210; 200 NW2d 628 (1972)............................................................................... passim
American Axle & Mfg., Inc. v City of Hamtramck,
461 Mich 352; 604 NW2d 330 (2000)...................................................................................... 18
Atty Gen v Perkins,
73 Mich 303; 41 NW 426 (1889).............................................................................................. 42
Bd of Regents of University of Michigan v Auditor General,
167 Mich 444; 132 NW 1037 (1911)........................................................................................ 21
Berrien v State of Michigan,
136 Mich App 772; 357 NW2d 764 (1984) .............................................................................. 47
Blank v Dep’t of Corrections,
462 Mich 103; 611 NW2d 530 (2000).......................................................................... 27, 41, 42
Breighner v Mich High School Athletic Ass’n, Inc,
471 Mich 217; 683 NW2d 639 (2004)........................................................................................ 8
Brennan v Connolly,
207 Mich 35; 173 NW 511 (1919)............................................................................................ 42
Burton v Lindsay,
184 Mich 250; 151 NW 48 (1915).......................................................................... 28, 31, 32, 33
Charter Township of Meridian v City of East Lansing,
101 Mich App 805; 300 NW2d 703 (1980) .............................................................................. 38
Checker Mutual Automobile Ins Co v Wayne Circuit Judge,
330 Mich 553; 48 NW2d 129 (1951)........................................................................................ 30
City of Detroit v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp,
77 Mich App 465; 258 NW2d 521 (1977) ................................................................................ 39
Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault v Michigan Catastrophic Claims Assoc,
498 Mich 896; 870 NW2d 70 (2015)......................................................................... viii, 2, 3, 41
Council 23 Am Fed’n of State, Cnty and Mun Emp, AFL-CIO v Civil Serv Comm’n,
32 Mich App 243; 188 NW2d 206 (1971) ................................................................................ 41
Council No 11 v Civil Serv Comm’n,
408 Mich 385; 292 NW2d 442 (1980)...................................................................................... 42
CPAN v MCCA,
305 Mich App 301; 852 NW2d 229 (2014) ....................................................................... viii, 19
iii

{36274/1/D1019979.DOCX;1}
Detroit v Redford Twp,
253 Mich 453; 235 NW 217 (1931).......................................................................................... 21
French v Mitchell,
377 Mich 364; 140 NW2d 426 (1966)...................................................................................... 21
Hanselman v Wayne Co Concealed Weapon Licensing Bd,
419 Mich 168; 351 NW2d 544 (1984)...................................................................................... 12
In re Application of International Transmission Co,
828 NW2d 23; 2013 Mich LEXIS 299 (2013) ......................................................................... 38
In re Certified Question, Henes Special Projects Procurement, Marketing and
Consulting Corp v Continental Biomass Industries, Inc,
468 Mich 109; 659 NW2d 597 (2003)...................................................................................... 19
In re Petition of Auditor General,
275 Mich 462; 266 NW 464 (1936).......................................................................................... 35
In re Requests of Governor & Senate on Constitutionality of Act No. 294 of
Public Acts of 1972,
389 Mich 441; 208 NW2d 469 (1973)................................................................................ 25, 36
League Gen Ins Co v Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass’n,
435 Mich 338; 458 NW2d 632 (1990)............................................................................... passim
League General v Catastrophic Claims Ass’n,
165 Mich App 278; 418 NW2d 708 (1987) .............................................................................. 12
Midland Township v State Boundary Comm,
401 Mich 641; 259 NW2d 326 (1977)...................................................................................... 35
Nalbandian v Progressive Michigan Ins Co,
267 Mich App 7; 703 NW2d 474 (2005) ................................................................ 28, 36, 44, 45
Omelenchuck v City of Warren,
461 Mich 567; 609 NW2d 177 (2000)...................................................................................... 19
People v Blount,
87 Mich App 501; 275 NW2d 21 (1978) .................................................................................. 38
People v Gardner,
482 Mich 41; 753 NW2d 78 (2008).......................................................................................... 18
People v Koon,
494 Mich 1; 832 NW2d 724 (2013).................................................................................... 37, 38
People v Mahaney,
13 Mich 481 (1865) ........................................................................................................... passim
People v Stimer,
248 Mich 272 (1929) .......................................................................................................... 34, 41
People v Valentine,
220 Mich App 401; 559 NW2d 396 (1996) .............................................................................. 21
iv

{36274/1/D1019979.DOCX;1}
People v Wands,
23 Mich 385 (1871) .................................................................................................................. 30
Protect Our Jobs v Bd of State Canvassers,
492 Mich 763; 822 NW2d 534 (2012)...................................................................................... 24
Robinson v City of Detroit,
462 Mich 439; 613 NW2d 307 (2000)...................................................................................... 18
Sclafani v Domestic Violence Escape,
255 Mich App 260; 660 NW2d 97 (2003) ................................................................................ 14
Shavers v Attorney General,
402 Mich 554; 267 NW2d 72 (1978).......................................................................................... 2
State Defender Union Employees v The Legal Aid and Defender Ass’n,
230 Mich App 426; 584 NW2d 359 (1998) .............................................................................. 19
Swartwout v Michigan Air Line Railroad Co,
24 Mich 389 (1872) .................................................................................................................. 30
Traverse City Sch Dist v Attorney General,
384 Mich 390; 185 NW2d 9 (1971).................................................................................... 27, 42
Weber v Township of Orion Building Inspector,
149 Mich App 660; 386 NW2d 635 (1986) .............................................................................. 39
Statutes
MCL 15.231(2) ......................................................................................................................... 5, 46
MCL 15.232(d) ..................................................................................................................... 3, 5, 11
MCL 15.232(d)(i) ........................................................................................................................... 5
MCL 15.243 ...................................................................................................................... 32, 40, 48
MCL 15.243(1)(l) ......................................................................................................................... 46
MCL 15.243(1)(y)......................................................................................................................... 46
MCL 15.243(2) ............................................................................................................................. 46
MCL 15.263 ............................................................................................................................ 21, 40
MCL 24.203(3) ............................................................................................................................. 20
MCL 257.625(8) ........................................................................................................................... 37
MCL 257.628(11) ......................................................................................................................... 36
MCL 333.26421 ............................................................................................................................ 37
MCL 500.134 ......................................................................................................................... passim
MCL 500.134(3) ..................................................................................................................... 20, 40
MCL 500.134(4) .................................................................................................................... passim
MCL 500.134(6) ........................................................................................................... 4, 10, 19, 40
v

{36274/1/D1019979.DOCX;1}
MCL 500.134(6)(c) ................................................................................................................. 11, 47
MCL 500.3102(2) ......................................................................................................................... 10
MCL 500.3104(1) ........................................................................................................................... 6
MCL 500.3104(7)(d)....................................................................................................................... 8
Constitutional Provisions
Michigan Constitution, Art 4, § 24 ................................................................................................. 2
Michigan Constitution, Art 4, § 25 ........................................................................................ passim
Michigan Constitution, Art 4, § 20 ............................................................................................... 25
Michigan Constitution, Art 4, § 26 ............................................................................................... 25
Michigan Constitution, Art 4, § 29 ............................................................................................... 25
Michigan Constitution, Art 4, § 35 ............................................................................................... 25
Public Acts
1988 Public Act 349.......................................................................................................... 15, 16, 17
2000 Public Act 88........................................................................................................................ 46
2002 Public Act 130...................................................................................................................... 46
2014 Public Act 563...................................................................................................................... 46
vi

{36274/1/D1019979.DOCX;1}
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
1 Plaintiffs’ Statements

2 Complaint, Amended Complaint, Requests for Production

3 10/24/12 Hearing Transcript

4 12/26/12 Order

vii

{36274/1/D1019979.DOCX;1}
STATEMENT REGARDING BASIS FOR JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal pursuant to the October 16, 2015 Order
of the Michigan Supreme Court, entered in accordance with MCR 7.305(H)(1). See Coalition
Protecting Auto No-Fault v Michigan Catastrophic Claims Assoc, 498 Mich 896; 870 NW2d 70
(2015). The Order vacates a portion of this Court’s decision in CPAN v MCCA, 305 Mich App
301; 852 NW2d 229 (2014), and directs this Court to consider the issues described in the
October 16 order.

viii

{36274/1/D1019979.DOCX;1}
STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the MCCA is a “public body” that is subject to the information
disclosure requirements of FOIA, as defined in Section 2(d)(iv) of Michigan’s Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”), MCL 15.232(d)(iv)?

CPAN, BIAMI and the Individual Plaintiffs say “yes.”
The Trial Court said “yes.”
The MCCA says “no.”

2. Whether the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in League Gen Ins Co v
Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass’n, 435 Mich 338, 351; 458 NW2d 632 (1990), holding that
the MCCA is not a “state agency” but a “private association,” alters the conclusion that the
MCCA is a public body that is subject to the information disclosure requirements of FOIA?

CPAN, BIAMI and the Individual Plaintiffs say “no.”
The Trial Court did not address this issue.
The MCCA would say “yes.”

3. Whether the Drafter’s Note in 1988 PA 349, stating that the MCCA “shall not
hereafter be treated as a state agency or public body,” alters the conclusion that the MCCA is a
public body subject to the information disclosure requirements of FOIA?

CPAN, BIAMI and the Individual Plaintiffs say “no.”
The Trial Court did not address this issue.
The MCCA would say “yes.”

4. Assuming that the MCCA is a public body subject to the information disclosure
requirements of FOIA, is MCL 500.134(4), which purports to exempt the records of the MCCA
from FOIA, unconstitutional because it was enacted in a manner which violates art 4, §25 of the
Michigan Constitution?

CPAN, BIAMI and the Individual Plaintiffs say “yes.”
The Trial Court did not address this issue.
The MCCA would say “no.”

5. If the Drafter’s Note amends MCL 500.134 to exclude the MCCA from the public
body definition of FOIA, is the amendment unconstitutional because it was enacted in a manner
which violates art 4, §25 of the Michigan Constitution?
CPAN, BIAMI and the Individual Plaintiffs say “yes.”
The Trial Court did not address this issue.
The MCCA would say “no.”

ix

{36274/1/D1019979.DOCX;1}