Insurance Institute, Michigan v. Commissioner, Office

10 Citing cases

  1. Mi. Farm Bureau v. Dept. of Envtl. Quality

    No. 290323 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2011)

    To determine the substantive validity of an administrative rule, Michigan courts employ a three-part test: (1) whether the rule is within the subject matter of the enabling statute, (2) whether it complies with the legislative intent underlying the enabling statute, and (3) whether it is arbitrary or capricious. Luttrell v Dep't of Corrections, 421 Mich 93, 100; 365 NW2d 74 (1984); see also Ins Institute of Michigan v Comm'r of Fin Ins Services, 486 Mich 370, 385; 785 NW2d 67 (2010). Administrative rules "are valid so long as they are not unreasonable; and, if doubt exists as to their invalidity, they must be upheld."

  2. Mich. Farm Bureau v. Dep't of Env't

    SC 165166 (Mich. Jul. 31, 2024)

    See Ins Institute of Mich. v Comm'r of Office of Fin & Ins Servs, 486 Mich. 370, 385; 785 N.W.2d 67 (2010) (holding that when an agency is empowered to make rules, courts use a three-part test to determine the substantive validity of the rule: "(1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets the first two requirements, when [sic] it is neither arbitrary nor capricious") (quotation marks and citation omitted, emphasis added, and alteration by the Ins Institute of Mich. Court); Slis v Michigan, 332 Mich.App. 312, 340; 956 N.W.2d 569 (2020) (noting that "[a]n agency rule is substantively invalid when the subject matter of the rule falls outside of or goes beyond the parameters of the enabling statute"); see also MCL 24.232(7) ("A rule must not exceed the rule-making delegation contained in the statute authorizing the rule-making.").

  3. Wolverine Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dyken

    No. 359339 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 8, 2023)

    Insurance companies draft rules for underwriting insurance based on the act's requirements. See Ins Institute of Mich. v Comm'r of the Office of Fin & Ins Servs, 486 Mich. 370, 386-387; 785 N.W.2d 67 (2010); Allstate Ins Co v Mich. Dep't of Ins, 195 Mich.App. 538, 540; 491 N.W.2d 616 (1992); Flumignan v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 131 Mich.App. 121, 123-125; 345 N.W.2d 910 (1983).

  4. AL-Hajjaj v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.

    No. 359291 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Our Legislature expressly limited the scope of these definitions to "this chapter" of the Insurance Code, i.e., Chapter 12 (Agents, Solicitors, Adjusters, and Counselors). MCL 500.1201 (2017). Cf Ins Institute of Mich. v Comm'r, 486 Mich. 370, 387; 785 N.W.2d 67 (2010) (recognizing that the Insurance Code is organized into separate chapters)

  5. Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dep't of Environmental Quality

    292 Mich. App. 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 42 times

    To determine the substantive validity of an administrative rule, Michigan courts employ a three-part test: (1) whether the rule is within the subject matter of the enabling statute, (2) whether it complies with the legislative intent underlying the enabling statute, and (3) whether it is arbitrary or capricious. Luttrell v. Dep't of Corrections, 421 Mich. 93, 100, 365 N.W.2d 74 (1984); see also Ins. Institute of Mich. v. Comm'r of Fin. & Ins. Serv., 486 Mich. 370, 385, 785 N.W.2d 67 (2010). Administrative rules " are valid so long as they are not unreasonable; and, if doubt exists as to their invalidity, they must be upheld."

  6. Nat'l Ass'n of Mut. Ins. Cos. v. State Dep't of Bus. & Indus.

    139 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Nev. 2023)

    NAMIC directs this court to the Michigan Supreme Court's decision to invalidate a regulation promulgated by the Michigan Division of Insurance banning the use of consumer credit information. See Ins. hist of Mich. v. Comm'r, Fin. & Ins. Servs., Dep't of Labor & Econ. Growth, 785 N.W.2d 67, 77-83 (Mich. 2010). There, the court found that the regulation conflicted with the statutory scheme permitting use of consumer credit information "by enacting a total ban on a practice that the Insurance Code permits."

  7. Brightmoore Gardens, LLC v. Marijuana Regulatory Agency

    337 Mich. App. 149 (Mich. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 11 times

    [ Ins. Institute of Mich. v. Comm'r of Fin. & Ins. Serv. , 486 Mich. 370, 385, 785 N.W.2d 67 (2010), quoting Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm. , 59 Mich. App. 88, 98-99, 228 N.W.2d 843 (1975).]

  8. Slis v. State

    332 Mich. App. 312 (Mich. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 47 times
    Affirming the preliminary injunction of emergency rules banning the sale of flavored nicotine vapor products

    Troy , 504 Mich. at 212, 934 N.W.2d 713. Our Supreme Court in Ins. Institute of Mich. v. Comm'r of Fin. & Ins. Servs. , 486 Mich. 370, 385, 785 N.W.2d 67 (2010), also indicated that courts use a three-part test to determine the validity of a rule: (1) whether the rule is within the subject matter encompassed by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether the rule complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if the rule meets the first two requirements, whether it is arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, there is no exclusive procedure or remedy provided in a different statute governing the DHHS with respect to challenging the validity of a rule promulgated by the DHHS.

  9. Attorney Gen. v. MPSC

    297 Mich. App. 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 13 times

    In re Complaint of Rovas, 482 Mich. at 108 . Indeed, an administrative agency's interpretation “is not binding on the courts, and it cannot conflict with the Legislature's intent as expressed in the language of the statute at issue.” Id. at 103 ; see also Ins. Institute of Mich. [ v. Comm'r of the Office of Fin. & Ins. Servs.], 486 Mich. [370,] 385 [785 N.W.2d 67 (2010) ]. Thus, even a longstanding administrative interpretation cannot overcome the plain language of a statute. Kinder Morgan Michigan, LLC v. City of Jackson, 277 Mich.App. 159, 173, 744 N.W.2d 184 (2007).

  10. Attorney General v. Mich. Pub. Serv. Comm'n (In re Ind. Mich. Power Co.)

    No. 299590 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 10, 2012)

    administrative agency's interpretation "is not binding on the courts, and it cannot conflict with the Legislature's intent as expressed in the language of the statute at issue." Id. at 103; see also Ins Institute of Mich [v Comm'r of the Office of Fin & Ins Servs], 486 Mich [370,] 385 [785 NW2d 67 (2010)]. Thus, even a longstanding administrative interpretation cannot overcome the plain language of a statute.