MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT
Act 198 of 1965
257.1106 Death or injury by uninsured motorist; application for payment from fund; disputing liability; payment; subrogation; suspension; default in payments.
Sec. 6.
(1) Where the death of or personal injury or property damage to any person or property is occasioned in this state by an uninsured motor vehicle, any person who would have a cause of action against the owner or driver of the uninsured motor vehicle in respect to the death or personal injury, or property damage except a person entitled to make an application under section 7, may make application, in a form prescribed by the secretary, for payment out of the fund subject to the limitations provided in this act for all damages in respect to the death or personal injury and for damages in excess of $200.00 in respect to property damage.
(2) Upon receipt of application under this section, the secretary shall forward, by certified mail, notice of the application to the owner and driver of the uninsured motor vehicle against whom liability for damages is alleged, to their last addresses as recorded with the secretary. If any person to whom a notice is sent replies in writing within 20 days of the date upon which the notice was sent, disputing his liability, the provisions of subsection (5) shall be suspended as to such person, until such person executes a written consent to such payment or the secretary obtains a judgment for such payment against such person in a court of law.
(3) In respect to the application, the secretary may make payment out of the fund, subject to section 23, of an amount that he deems proper if the applicant executes a written release of all claims arising out of the accident to be paid from the fund.
(4) Where an amount is paid out of the fund under this section, the secretary is subrogated to the rights of the person to whom the amount is paid and may maintain an action in his own name or in the name of the person against the person responsible for the use or operation of the uninsured motor vehicle.
(5) Where payment is made under this section, the operator's or chauffeur's license and owner's registration or registrations of the persons to whom the notice was forwarded under this section shall be forthwith suspended by the secretary and shall not be reinstated until such person or persons have:
(a) Repaid in full to the fund the amount paid out; or
(b) Commenced installment repayments in accordance with an agreement made with the secretary, and filed proof of financial responsibility until the amount paid out in settlement of the claim by the motor vehicle accident claims fund has been repaid in full.
(6) Where a person who has commenced repayment of an amount paid out of the fund is in default in any payment for a period of 10 days, or fails to maintain proof of financial responsibility as required by this act, the secretary shall forthwith suspend the operator's or chauffeur's license and vehicle registration or registrations of the person.
History: 1965, Act 198, Eff. Nov. 1, 1965 ;-- Am. 1965, Act 389, Imd. Eff. Oct. 25, 1965 ;-- Am. 1967, Act 274, Imd. Eff. July 20, 1967 ;-- Am. 1968, Act 223, Eff. July 1, 1968
Notes of Decisions
Bray v. Dep't of State, 341 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. 1983).
· cites it 4× “MCL 257.1106(4); MSA 9.2806(4). Uninsured motorists against whom there were unsatisfied judgments owing either to an injured party or the fund and with whom the Secretary of State had not been able to make a repayment arrangement were made subject to the revocation both of their…”
Weisberg v. Det. Auto. Inter-ins. Ex., 194 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 4× “Finally, plaintiff argued that if he is unable to recover from his insurance company under either theory, then he should be permitted to recover from the Fund under MCLA § 257.1106 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 9.”
Bowser v. Jacobs, 194 N.W.2d 110 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 4× “[19] MCLA § 257.1106 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 9.”
People v. Orweller, 494 N.W.2d 753 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
“"Person,” as defined in the act, includes corporations such as insurance companies.”
Hurt v. Sec'y of State, 202 N.W.2d 554 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 5× “Plaintiff is an uninsured motorist whose driver’s license was revoked pursuant to MCLA 257.1106; MSA 9.2806. The present appeal is based upon her allegation that such revocations by a state official violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and her…”
Weisberg v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 36 Mich. App. 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 4× “Finally, plaintiff argued that if he is unable to recover from his insurance company under either theory, then he should be permitted to recover from the Fund under MCLA § 257.1106 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 9.”
Abbott v. Sec'y of State, 240 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
“Plaintiff did not file a disclaimer of liability pursuant to MCLA 257.1106; MSA 9.2806. He has not complied with either statutory alternative requisite to the return of his license.”
Sec'y of State v. Greco, 271 N.W.2d 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 3× “We do not believe that the Legislature intended to limit the Secretary to the objection procedure outlined above, however, since MCL 257.1106(4); MSA 9.2806(4) provides that: "Where an amount is paid out of the fund under this *504 section, the secretary is subrogated to the…”
Bray v. Dep't of State, 244 N.W.2d 619 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
“2806(4), and MCLA 257.1106(5); MSA 9.2806(5), also support it.”
Williams v. Sec'y of State, 198 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 3× “MCLA 257.1106; MSA 9.2806. The statute requires proof of mailing only by certified mail by the director.”
Abbott v. Sec'y of State, 269 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“If, however, the uninsured did not dispute his liability, the Secretary could make an administrative determination of negligence, suspend the driver’s license of the uninsured, and pay out monies from the fund at his discretion.”
Bell v. Sec'y of State, 218 N.W.2d 118 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 4× “Ming filed an application for payment from the Motor Vehicle Accident *579 Claims Fund 1 pursuant to the provisions of MCLA 257.1106; MSA 9.2806. On August 10, 1971, written notice of Mr.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.1106(2) — 2 cases
Hurt v. Sec'y of State, 202 N.W.2d 554 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
“Plaintiff is an uninsured motorist whose driver’s license was revoked pursuant to MCLA 257.1106; MSA 9.2806. The present appeal is based upon her allegation that such revocations by a state official violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and her…”
Bell v. Sec'y of State, 218 N.W.2d 118 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
“Ming filed an application for payment from the Motor Vehicle Accident *579 Claims Fund 1 pursuant to the provisions of MCLA 257.1106; MSA 9.2806. On August 10, 1971, written notice of Mr.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.1106(3) — 1 case
Hurt v. Sec'y of State, 202 N.W.2d 554 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
“Plaintiff is an uninsured motorist whose driver’s license was revoked pursuant to MCLA 257.1106; MSA 9.2806. The present appeal is based upon her allegation that such revocations by a state official violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and her…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.1106(4) — 3 cases
Bray v. Dep't of State, 341 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. 1983).
“MCL 257.1106(4); MSA 9.2806(4). Uninsured motorists against whom there were unsatisfied judgments owing either to an injured party or the fund and with whom the Secretary of State had not been able to make a repayment arrangement were made subject to the revocation both of their…”
People v. Orweller, 494 N.W.2d 753 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
“"Person,” as defined in the act, includes corporations such as insurance companies.”
Sec'y of State v. Greco, 271 N.W.2d 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“We do not believe that the Legislature intended to limit the Secretary to the objection procedure outlined above, however, since MCL 257.1106(4); MSA 9.2806(4) provides that: "Where an amount is paid out of the fund under this *504 section, the secretary is subrogated to the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.1106(5) — 5 cases
Weisberg v. Det. Auto. Inter-ins. Ex., 194 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
“Finally, plaintiff argued that if he is unable to recover from his insurance company under either theory, then he should be permitted to recover from the Fund under MCLA § 257.1106 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 9.”
Weisberg v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 36 Mich. App. 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
“Finally, plaintiff argued that if he is unable to recover from his insurance company under either theory, then he should be permitted to recover from the Fund under MCLA § 257.1106 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 9.”
Hurt v. Sec'y of State, 202 N.W.2d 554 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
“Plaintiff is an uninsured motorist whose driver’s license was revoked pursuant to MCLA 257.1106; MSA 9.2806. The present appeal is based upon her allegation that such revocations by a state official violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and her…”
Bray v. Dep't of State, 244 N.W.2d 619 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
“2806(4), and MCLA 257.1106(5); MSA 9.2806(5), also support it.”
Bell v. Sec'y of State, 218 N.W.2d 118 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
“Ming filed an application for payment from the Motor Vehicle Accident *579 Claims Fund 1 pursuant to the provisions of MCLA 257.1106; MSA 9.2806. On August 10, 1971, written notice of Mr.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.1106(5)(b) — 1 case
Sec'y of State v. Greco, 271 N.W.2d 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“We do not believe that the Legislature intended to limit the Secretary to the objection procedure outlined above, however, since MCL 257.1106(4); MSA 9.2806(4) provides that: "Where an amount is paid out of the fund under this *504 section, the secretary is subrogated to the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.1106(6) — 1 case
Bray v. Dep't of State, 341 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. 1983).
“MCL 257.1106(4); MSA 9.2806(4). Uninsured motorists against whom there were unsatisfied judgments owing either to an injured party or the fund and with whom the Secretary of State had not been able to make a repayment arrangement were made subject to the revocation both of their…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.