Introduction

The Michigan Supreme Court delivered an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of Public Act 294 of 1972 (PA 294), enacted by the Michigan Legislature to amend the Insurance Code. The request for an advisory opinion was jointly made by the Governor and the Senate, seeking clarity on whether PA 294 complied with Michigan's constitutional limitations, specifically Articles 4, Sections 24 and 25 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963.

The key issues addressed were:

• Whether PA 294 embraces more than one object, violating the "one-object" limitation of the Constitution.
• Whether PA 294 modifies existing statutory provisions by reference without proper reenactment and publication, thus violating constitutional amendment procedures.
• Whether specific phrases within PA 294 are sufficiently clear for legal interpretation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Michigan Supreme Court concluded that PA 294 does not violate the constitutional limitation prohibiting a statute from embracing more than one object as expressed in its title. Additionally, the court found that the phrases "serious impairment of body function" and "permanent serious disfigurement" are sufficiently clear for legal interpretation.

However, the court determined that PA 294 violates Article 4, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution. This section mandates that no law shall be revised, altered, or amended by reference to its title only, and that amended sections must be reenacted and published at length. The court found that PA 294 amended existing laws by reference without adhering to these procedural requirements.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several key precedents to support its findings:

• Maki v. East Tawas (1971): Reinforced the principle that legislative titles should encompass all sections of the act related to its object.
• KUHN v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (1971): Emphasized that the "one-object" limitation should be construed reasonably and not narrowly to hinder legislative enactment.
• Mahaney (1865) and Mok v. Detroit Building Savings Association No. 4 (1875): Provided guidelines on what constitutes permissible "amendment by implication" under Article 4, Section 25.
• ALAN v. WAYNE COUNTY (1972): Demonstrated the necessity of adhering to constitutional amendment procedures when modifying existing statutes.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning unfolded as follows:

• Single Object Requirement: The court determined that PA 294's primary objective aligns with the Insurance Code's overarching purpose to regulate the insurance and surety business. The additional provisions related to tort liability modification for motor vehicle accidents are intrinsically connected to the insurance framework, thus satisfying the "one-object" constitutional requirement.
• Amendment Procedures: While the substantive content of PA 294 was deemed constitutional, the manner in which it amended existing laws raised concerns. Specifically, PA 294 modified existing statutory provisions by reference without reenacting and publishing the altered sections at length, as mandated by Article 4, Section 25. This procedural oversight was deemed a violation, despite the court's recognition of the statute's substantive validity.
• Interpretation of Phrases: The court concluded that the phrases "serious impairment of body function" and "permanent serious disfigurement" are sufficiently precise. These terms fall within the purview of the courts and juries to interpret on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that legal standards remain flexible and context-sensitive.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future legislative actions in Michigan:

• Legislative Drafting: Legislators must ensure that any amendments to existing statutes comply with constitutional amendment procedures, specifically reenactment and publication where required.
• Statutory Clarity: The decision underscores the importance of clear and precise statutory language, especially when modifying existing laws, to prevent ambiguity and ensure enforceability.
• Advisory Opinions: While advisory opinions are not precedential, they provide authoritative guidance to the legislature on constitutional compliance, potentially shaping the drafting of future laws.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The "One-Object" Constitutional Limitation (Article 4, Section 24)

This constitutional provision mandates that a single statute must have only one primary objective, clearly expressed in its title. The purpose is to ensure transparency, prevent legislative overreach, and avoid the inclusion of unrelated provisions under a unified title.

Amendment by Reference (Article 4, Section 25)

When a new law modifies or amends existing statutes, the Constitution requires that such changes not be made solely by referencing the title of the existing law. Instead, the specific sections altered must be reenacted and published in full to provide clear notice and maintain legal clarity.

Advisory Opinions

An advisory opinion is the court's non-binding interpretation of a statute's constitutionality upon request. Unlike judicial decisions on actual cases, advisory opinions do not set precedents but offer guidance to legislative bodies.

Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court's advisory opinion on PA 294 highlights the delicate balance between legislative innovation and constitutional adherence. While the substantive objectives of PA 294 align with the Insurance Code's regulatory framework, ensuring coherence with the "one-object" requirement, the procedural missteps in amending existing statutes underscore the necessity for meticulous legislative drafting. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to Michigan's legislature to rigorously follow constitutional amendment procedures to uphold legal clarity and public trust.

Ultimately, the ruling affirms the court's role in guiding legislative practices while protecting constitutional safeguards, ensuring that laws remain both effective and constitutionally sound.