“All Means ALL”: Michigan Supreme Court Mandates Post-July 1, 2020 Bodily-Injury Minimums in Every Auto Policy Delivered After June 11, 2019

1. Introduction

Bonter v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Co. is the Michigan Supreme Court’s first authoritative construction of the 2019 no-fault reforms that doubled (and later multiplied by twelve) the minimum bodily-injury liability limits in MCL 500.3009. The dispute pits injured motorists Cody Bonter and Kaytlin Jackman against Progressive Marathon Insurance Company, whose policy—issued on June 19 2020—still contained the old $20 000 / $40 000 limits when the accident occurred in July 2020. The core issue: Must a policy that crosses July 1 2020 automatically upgrade to the new $250 000 / $500 000 minimums, even if it was issued before that date? The Court of Appeals said “no,” relying on its own earlier decision in Progressive v. Pena. The Supreme Court unanimously granted argument and—by peremptory order—said an emphatic “yes,” reversing the Court of Appeals and repudiating Pena in everything but name.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that MCL 500.3009(1) requires every auto liability policy delivered or issued for delivery after June 11 2019 to carry both sets of statutory minimums: $20 000 / $40 000 until July 1 2020, and $250 000 / $500 000 thereafter, unless the insured affirmatively opts for lower limits under subsections (5)-(8).
Because Progressive’s policy was delivered on June 19 2020—after the statute’s effective date—it was unlawful for the policy to omit the higher post-July 1 2020 limits. The accident on July 25 2020 therefore triggered $250 000 / $500 000 coverage.
The Court remanded for further proceedings, leaving Progressive’s remaining defenses to the Court of Appeals. It declined to address whether the July 6 2020 vehicle substitution amounted to a new “delivery.”

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The majority leans on three doctrinal pillars:

Farrington v. Total Petroleum, 442 Mich 201 (1993) – the “No-Inadvertence Canon”: courts may not assume the Legislature accidentally omitted or included language when comparing related statutes.
In re Rovas, 482 Mich 90 (2008) – administrative interpretations (here, DIFS website FAQs) merit respectful consideration but cannot trump clear statutory text.
Progressive v. Pena, 345 Mich App 270 (2023) – cited only to reject its statutory construction; the Supreme Court silently overrules it by holding “the date ranges modify the coverage limits, not the phrase ‘delivered or issued for delivery.’”

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Plain-Language Priority. The operative verb phrase in §3009(1)—“unless the liability coverage is subject to all of the following limits”—makes the ensuing subparagraphs limits, not temporal conditions on delivery. The word “all” sweeps in every limit subsequently listed.
Structural Reading. The Legislature did confine other no-fault amendments to “policies issued or renewed after July 1 2020” (e.g., §§3107c, 3107d). The absence of similar language in §3009(1) signals that the heightened bodily-injury limits were meant to apply sooner.
Subsection Harmony. Because subsections (5)-(8) expressly give insureds the choice to buy lower limits after July 1 2020, a policy crossing that date must—by default—contain the higher limits; otherwise subsections (5)-(8) would be meaningless for such an insured.
Rejecting DIFS Guidance. Agency FAQs—while useful—are “guidance,” not law. They cannot rewrite §3009. Thus, insurers’ compliance with DIFS instructions is no defense if the instructions conflict with the statute’s text.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

Immediate financial exposure: Any Michigan auto insurer that issued or renewed a policy between June 11 2019 and July 1 2020 with the old $20 000 / $40 000 limits now faces potential reformation claims for accidents occurring on or after July 2 2020.
Administrative upheaval: Insurers must audit all “bridge” policies and adjust reserves retroactively. Premium disputes may follow because the Court’s order does not address whether insurers can back-bill for the additional risk.
Litigation posture: Plaintiffs injured after July 1 2020 will routinely cite Bonter when seeking higher bodily-injury limits; defense counsel must evaluate whether opt-down forms were executed under §3009(5).
Precedential effect: Bonter effectively overturns Pena, resolves a split among trial courts, and anchors a textualist methodology that may influence future statutory-construction disputes in Michigan.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

No-Fault System: Michigan drivers traditionally carried unlimited Personal Protection Insurance (PIP) for their own medical expenses, while liability for bodily injury to others was capped at $20 k/ $40 k. The 2019 reforms allowed drivers to reduce PIP but correspondingly increased liability limits to protect third parties.
“Delivered or issued for delivery”: A term of art in insurance regulation meaning the moment an enforceable policy leaves the insurer’s hands (electronically or physically) for an insured located in Michigan.
Subsection (5) “Opt-Down”: Beginning July 2 2020, insureds may purchase lower bodily-injury limits—but never below $50 000 / $100 000—by completing a DIFS-approved form. Without a signed form, the default $250 000 / $500 000 limits govern.
Policy “Reformation”: When a policy violates a statutory mandate, courts rewrite its terms to conform to the statute. Coverage is read in by operation of law, even if no premium was charged for it.

5. Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court’s terse but momentous ruling in Bonter delivers a clear message: once the Legislature raises minimum coverage requirements, insurers must build every applicable limit into every policy delivered after the statute’s effective date, unless the insured explicitly elects otherwise. By declaring that “all” means “all,” the Court protects accident victims, vindicates textual fidelity, and imposes substantial retrospective liability on insurers who relied on administrative guidance rather than the statutory text. Going forward, Bonter will serve as the definitive touchstone for interpreting Michigan’s no-fault reforms and for reminding participants in regulated industries that legislative language—not agency FAQs—sets the legal floor.