LANSING — The Supreme Court of Michigan heard oral argument in Goings v. Snow on whether a person who is a nonresident of Michigan and who does not maintain Michigan no‑fault insurance can be barred from recovering non‑economic damages under MCL 500.3135(2)(c).

At argument, defense counsel Brandon Wyckoff told the court that the statutory phrase “the security required by section 500.3101” should be read to refer to the set of coverages that constitute Michigan no‑fault insurance, not solely to the class of persons who must buy it. "Section 500.3101 . . . is setting out the three types of insurances that make up what no fault insurance is," Wyckoff said, arguing the phrase focuses on whether the coverage "exists or not." He asked the court to read the ban in MCL 500.3135(2)(c) to apply whenever the motor vehicle involved lacked the statutorily required security, regardless of whether the owner was a Michigan registrant or a nonresident covered by MCL 500.3102.

Plaintiff's counsel Bradley Perry urged the justices to follow the plain text of the statute and the court of appeals. "Start with the text, respect the text, and end with the text," Perry said, noting that MCL 500.3135(2)(c) expressly refers only to the security described in MCL 500.3101(1). Perry told the court that, if the legislature intended to bar recovery for violations of MCL 500.3102(1) as well, it could have said so when the no‑fault act was substantially amended in 2019, but did not.

Justices asked several practical and statutory‑interpretation questions during the roughly 15‑minute argument for each side. Chief Justice (identified in the transcript as the justice calling the case) and Justice Bernstein pressed counsel on real‑world implications, including whether out‑of‑state motorists are realistically able to obtain separate Michigan coverage, and what the loss of personal‑injury protection (PIP) benefits means in practice. Justice Bernstein questioned whether ordinary visitors would be aware they must purchase Michigan no‑fault coverage if they stay more than 30 days.

Wyckoff acknowledged uncertainty about underwriting practices but argued that insurers doing business in Michigan commonly operate in other states and could issue Michigan coverage. Perry responded that MCL 500.3102(1) — the provision that requires nonresidents who operate in Michigan more than 30 aggregate days per year to maintain security — primarily affects entitlement to PIP benefits and that the legislature’s omission of MCL 500.3102 from the non‑economic damages bar was deliberate.

The defense also cited MCL 500.3177(1) (an assigned claims/subrogation provision discussed in briefing) to distinguish how the legislature references both MCL 500.3101 and MCL 500.3102 elsewhere in the code; Wyckoff argued the differing phrasing supports his reading that section 500.3135(2)(c) targets the existence of the defined security rather than the class of persons required to purchase it.

Both sides acknowledged that if a nonresident lacks Michigan PIP, that person typically cannot claim PIP benefits in Michigan and that other parts of the no‑fault statute (including the serious‑impairment threshold in MCL 500.3135) would still apply to tort claims that proceed. Perry said nonresidents who lack Michigan PIP still face the statute’s substantive limits, but are not barred from recovering non‑economic damages under subsection (2)(c) based on his reading.

After rebuttal time was reserved and used as permitted, counsel closed and the court submitted the case for decision.

The court did not announce a ruling at the argument session; the matter is under consideration.