Justia Michigan Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal challenged the small employer group health coverage act (Act), which establishes requirements for insurance carriers to offer health insurance benefit plans to small employers in Michigan. Priority Health sought a declaratory judgment from the Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) so that it could allocate a small portion of insurance premiumsâ costs to employers, lessening the financial burden on employees. Priority Health would not renew contracts with employers who did not agree to pay a portion of the premiums. Both the Court of Appeals and the Commissioner of the Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) concluded that âminimum employer contribution provisionsâ are inconsistent with the Act. They reasoned that an employerâs failure to pay a minimum percentage of its employeesâ premiums is not among the reasons in the Act that a carrier can use to refuse to renew an insurance plan. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court and OFISâ interpretation of the Act. The Court found that just because the Michigan Legislature did not include an employerâs refusal to pay according to a minimum contribution provision as among the reasons for not renewing a contract for benefits, the [Priority Health] provision was unreasonable or inconsistent with the Act. In general, âunless a provision directly conflicts with the enumerated reasons [of the Act], it may be included in a plan so long as it is reasonable and not inconsistent.â The Court remanded the case to the OFIS for further proceedings.

Plaintiff Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC (Lodge) is a water park that sits on former farmland. In 2000, the Lodge annexed a new portion of the former farmland to expand its premises. Defendant Cherryland Electric Cooperative (Cherryland) ran an electric line to the former farm. Cherryland insisted that it had exclusive rights to provide electric service to the Lodge. The Lodge did not protest Cherrylandâs assertion in order to keep its expansion project on track. The new Cherryland contract called for discounted rates. Over the course of the contract, Cherryland unilaterally raised the rates. The Lodge filed suit seeking a refund of excess rates it paid to Cherryland, and to have the ability to choose its own electric service provider. A hearing officer would rule in favor of the Lodge on the rate refund, but would not allow it to choose its own service provider, citing Cherrylandâs âright of first entitlementâ that dated back to when it provided service to the farm. The appellate court reversed the hearing officer. One of the issues on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether Cherrylandâs âright of first entitlementâ stopped when the property ownership changed hands. The Court concluded that the right is not extinguished when ownership changes. The Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court, and reinstated the decision of the hearing officer.

In âPeople v. Helzer,â the Michigan Supreme Court held that when a criminal defendant is charged with being a sexually delinquent person in relation to an underlying sexual offense, separate juries must determine the defendantâs guilt of the sexual delinquency charge and the underlying charge. In this case, Defendant Anthony Breidenbach was convicted by a single jury of "indecent exposure as a sexually delinquent person.â The trial court granted Defendantâs motion for a new trial after the Court of Appeals vacated his conviction on the ground that the first trial violated his rights under the Supreme Courtâs two-jury directive. The prosecutor appealed, arguing that the Helzer case was wrongly decided. The Supreme Court overturned its holding in Helzer. The sexual delinquency statute at issue this case and in the Helzer case, neither explicitly nor implicitly requires separate juries. Because the Helzer rule lacks support in the language of the statute itself, determinations whether separate juries are needed should be made on a case-by-case basis in accordance with state law. The Court granted the prosecutorâs request to for permission to appeal the lower courtâs ruling, and it vacated the trial courtâs granting to Defendant a new trial, reinstating his conviction.