The Michigan Supreme Court heard argument in Central Home Healthcare Services v. Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility, case No. 167421, on whether Michigan's Assigned Claims Plan (ACP) must provide no‑fault personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits to Michigan residents injured as occupants in motor vehicle accidents that occur outside Michigan.

Attorney Zachary Kemp, for plaintiff‑appellant Central Home Healthcare Services, told the court that the question is "an issue of first impression" about "the impact of the amendments of, the 2019 amendments to the No Fault Act." Kemp argued that the statutory scheme — read in harmony — permits Michigan residents injured as occupants in out‑of‑state accidents to apply for benefits under the assigned claims statutes if higher‑priority coverages are unavailable. Kemp noted procedural requirements such as the application and proof standards in the assigned claims statutes and reserved time for rebuttal.

Erin Sedmack, counsel for the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility, told the justices that "there is no right to benefits under the assigned claims plan for an out of state accident, and there never has been." Sedmack argued the Court of Appeals and pre‑reform precedent interpret MCL 500.3172(1) (referred to in argument as "31 72") to require that an ACP applicant be injured "in this state," and that the legislature preserved that language in the 2019 reforms despite multiple other changes to the no‑fault statutory scheme.

Justices questioned both sides about statutory construction and practical consequences. One justice asked Kemp how an ACP application would function if the court adopted his interpretation; Kemp replied that the application, cooperation obligations and proof rules in MCL 500.3173a and related provisions would apply "the same as a claim that occurs in state." Another justice raised concerns about coverage for uninsured passengers, including students, disabled people and seniors, and asked what remedy those individuals would have under Kemp's reading. Kemp acknowledged those concerns and said that, under current Court of Appeals precedent (Steenhouse), some such claimants are presently precluded from ACP relief but that his statutory reading would permit an ACP application where higher‑priority coverages are lacking.

Sedmack emphasized that the 2019 reforms narrowed eligibility, intentionally excluded nonresidents from some benefits, and strengthened MAIPF's investigatory tools in MCL 500.3173a. She said the legislature retained the phrase "in this state" in 3172(1) and repeatedly directed claimants to sections 3171–3175 when an ACP claim is mandatory under the priority rules in MCL 500.3114. Sedmack argued courts should not read 3172(1) out of the act to create an alternative path to ACP benefits for out‑of‑state accidents.

Both advocates and the justices discussed precedent referenced in the briefs and argument, including Steenhouse, Rollman (sometimes cited as Rollman/Rolleman in the record), Nickerson and other decisions that bear on interpretation of the no‑fault act and the ACP. The justices queried whether the general/specific canon and the principle of reading related provisions "in gramma materia" required harmonizing MCL 500.3111, MCL 500.3114 and the ACP provisions.

No decision was issued at argument. The case was submitted after closing remarks and the parties' time reservations for rebuttal; the court will issue a written opinion resolving whether and how the assigned claims statutes permit ACP applications for Michigan residents injured as occupants in out‑of‑state crashes.

Ending: The case will be submitted for decision after the parties' allotted argument time elapsed.