STATE OF MICHIGAN
Journal of the Senate
100th Legislature
REGULAR SESSION OF 2019
Senate Chamber, Lansing, Tuesday, May 7, 2019.
10:00
a.m.
The
Senate was called to order by the President, Lieutenant Governor Garlin D.
Gilchrist II.
The roll
was called by the Secretary of the Senate, who announced that a quorum was
present.
Alexander—present Horn—present Outman—present
Ananich—present Irwin—present Polehanki—present
Barrett—present Johnson—present Runestad—present
Bayer—present LaSata—present Santana—present
Bizon—present Lauwers—present Schmidt—present
Brinks—present Lucido—present Shirkey—present
Bullock—present MacDonald—present Stamas—present
Bumstead—present MacGregor—present Theis—present
Chang—present McBroom—present VanderWall—present
Daley—present McCann—present Victory—present
Geiss—present McMorrow—present Wojno—present
Hertel—present Moss—present Zorn—present
Hollier—present Nesbitt—present
Almighty God, we come before You
today and give thanks to You for Your many blessings. Many times our lives are
so full of busy work that we neglect our relationship with You. For that, we
are sorry. We know that You never neglect us, but if You did, our very lives
would cease to be.
We pause today to pray for the
Senate of Michigan and elected leadership chosen to legislate the affairs of
its people. We invoke the spirit of wisdom upon Governor Whitmer and Lieutenant
Governor Gilchrist. We pray for the Senate President pro tempore and majority
and minority leadership of the Senate and both houses, their staffs, and
constituents. Especially, we pray for Senator Bullock and the delegation from
Detroit. Help them to never stop looking back but not become so fixated by what
they see, that they fail to keep pressing forward toward excellence and
greatness. Bless them to agree, acknowledge, love, accept, and welcome into
their lives all that is truth and rebuke and reject all that is false. We
invoke into their lives and encourage also in others all that is of love and
pray they reject and expel all that is of hate. Bless them to open and fill
themselves with all that is good and pure, and that they rebuke and cast away
all that is evil and vile, dishonorable, and unproductive.
May the voice of the divine
servant echo in their ears who said He didn’t come so that others could serve
Him; He came to serve and to give. Continue to pull them to Yourself. Guide
them in their deliberations and decisions. Hold them close to Your bosom until
the day they hear You say “well done.” Be with them now as they gather to do
the people’s work. May they feel Your presence among them.
We ask these blessings in the
precious name of the one true God who is known by many names. Amen.
The President, Lieutenant
Governor Gilchrist, led the members of the Senate in recital of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Motions and Communications
Senate Bill No. 113, entitled
A bill to amend 1979 PA 94,
entitled “The state school aid act of 1979,” by amending section 101 (MCL
388.1701), as amended by 2018 PA 586.
The motion prevailed.
The following communications were
received and read:
Office of the Auditor General
April 30, 2019
Enclosed is a copy of the
following reports:
• Report on Internal Control, Compliance, and
Other Matters for the Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System
(071-0152-19).
• Performance audit report on the Office of
Children’s Ombudsman, Department of Technology, Management, and Budget
(071-0176-17).
May 1, 2019
Enclosed is a copy of the
following report:
• Performance audit report on Oversight and
Encounter Claim Integrity of the Comprehensive Health Care Program, Michigan
Department of Health and Human Services (391-0702-17).
May 3, 2019
Enclosed is a copy of the
following reports:
• Performance audit report on Prisoner
Pharmaceuticals, Department of Corrections (471-0325-17).
• Performance audit report on the Michigan
Veterans’ Trust Fund, Michigan Veterans Affairs Agency, Department of Military
and Veterans Affairs (511-0410-18).
Sincerely,
Doug
Ringler
Auditor
General
The audit reports were referred
to the Committee on Oversight.
The following communications were
received:
Department of State
Administrative Rules
Notices of Filing
January 8, 2019
In accordance with the
requirements of Section 46 of Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, being MCL
24.246, and paragraph 16 of Executive Order 1995-6, this is to advise you that
the Office of Regulatory Reinvention filed Administrative Rule #2018-001-LR
(Secretary of State Filing #19-01-20) on this date at 3:08 p.m. for the
Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs entitled, “Consumer Standards
and Billing Practices for Electric and Natural Gas Service.”
These rules become effective
immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State unless adopted under
sections 33, 44, or 45a(6) of 1969 PA 306. Rules adopted under these sections
become effective 7 days after filing with the Secretary of State.
January 8, 2019
In accordance with the
requirements of Section 46 of Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, being MCL
24.246, and paragraph 16 of Executive Order 1995-6, this is to advise you that
the Office of Regulatory Reinvention filed Administrative Rule #2018-017-LR
(Secretary of State Filing #19-01-21) on this date at 3:08 p.m. for the
Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs entitled, “Workers’ Compensation
Health Care Services.”
These rules become effective
immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State unless adopted under
sections 33, 44, or 45a(6) or 48 of 1969 PA 306. Rules adopted under these
sections become effective 7 days after filing with the Secretary of State.
January 8, 2019
In accordance with the
requirements of Section 46 of Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, being MCL
24.246, and paragraph 16 of Executive Order 1995-6, this is to advise you that
the Office of Regulatory Reinvention filed Administrative Rule #2018-011-LR
(Secretary of State Filing #19-01-22) on this date at 3:08 p.m. for the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
entitled, “Survey and Remonumentation – General Rules.”
These rules become effective
immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State unless adopted under
sections 33, 44, or 45a(6) of 1969 PA 306. Rules adopted under these sections become
effective 7 days after filing with the Secretary of State.
Sincerely,
Jocelyn
Benson
Secretary
of State
Robin
L. Houston, Departmental Supervisor
Office
of the Great Seal
The communications were referred
to the Secretary for record.
The following communication was
received:
Office of Senator Ken Horn
May 5, 2019
I respectfully request that I be
added as a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 1, introduced by Senator Aric Nesbitt.
Please take steps to formally process my addition as soon as possible.
Thank you for your assistance in
this matter.
Sincerely,
Ken
Horn
State
Senator
32nd
District
The communication was referred to
the Secretary for record.
The following communication was
received:
Office of Senator Tom Barrett
May 7, 2019
I, Senator Tom Barrett, would
like my name added as a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 1. If there are any
questions, please contact me or my office.
Best,
Tom
Barrett
State
Senator
24th
Senate District
The communication was referred to
the Secretary for record.
The following communication was
received:
Office of Senator Kimberly LaSata
May 7, 2019
I would like to be added as a
co-sponsor to SB 1.
Sincerely,
Kim
LaSata
State
Senator
21st
District
The communication was referred to
the Secretary for record.
The following communication was
received:
Office of Senator Dan Lauwers
May 7, 2019
Please accept this letter
regarding Senate Bill 1, I would like to be added as a co-sponsor.
Sincerely,
Dan
Lauwers
State
Senator, 25th District
The communication was referred to
the Secretary for record.
The following communication was
received:
Office of Senator Ed McBroom
May 7, 2019
I am writing to be a co-sponsor
of SB 1. Please include my name on the co-sponsor list.
Sincerely,
Ed
McBroom
State
Senator
38th
District
The communication was referred to
the Secretary for record.
The motion prevailed.
Senator MacGregor’s statement is as follows:
This morning it is my pleasure to
recognize two individuals who are earning a special honor. The Frank Fitzgerald
Public Service Award recognizes talented young people active in Michigan
government who have shown extraordinary dedication and a willingness to help
others. The award is named for the late Frank M. Fitzgerald, a state lawmaker
in the 1980s and 1990s. Frank served for 12 years in the Michigan House and was
Speaker pro tempore for two terms. His father, John Fitzgerald, served here in the
Michigan Senate. Recipients are honored for their excellence as scholars,
communicators, and volunteers.
The first winner is Michael
Downs, who interned in the Michigan House. Michael served in the office of
State Representative Lee Chatfield, where he helped constituents in the 107th
District, and also for former Representative Laura Cox. She represented the
19th House District, including Michael’s home town of Livonia. Michael was
president of the Michigan State University International Relations Organization,
one of the top ranked in the country. Last week, Michael received his bachelor’s
degree from MSU. Michael is the son of Mary Kay Downs and the late Patrick
Downs. Mrs. Downs is in the east Gallery. Please join me in welcoming her.
Our second recipient is William
Gooding. He interned with Aric Nesbitt, the Senator who represents his hometown
of Paw Paw. Will also did an internship with Representative Lee Chatfield in
the Michigan House and interned with Congressman Jack Bergman in Washington,
D.C. In 2018, Will was honored with the Daniel Rosenthal Legislative Intern
Award for his public service. Last weekend, Will received his bachelor’s degree
from Michigan State University. Will’s mother, Carol Biegun, is in the east
Gallery. Thank you for being with us today.
On behalf of the Michigan Senate,
we’d like to thank both of these individuals for their hard work. We
congratulate them on winning the 2019 Fitzgerald Public Service Award.
Messages from the Governor
The following message from the Governor
was received on May 3, 2019, and read:
EXECUTIVE ORDER
No. 2019-11
Declaration
of State of Emergency
This week southeastern Michigan
experienced heavy and damaging rainfall. Wayne County was among the most
severely impacted areas. This event created dangerous flooding throughout many
areas of Wayne County and caused power outages, hazardous driving conditions,
and increased emergency vehicle response time due to inaccessible roadways and
bridges. According to the National Weather Service, a flood watch remains in
effect through the morning of Friday, May 3, 2019.
In response, Wayne County has
taken several actions that include declaring a local state of emergency;
activating its disaster response and recovery operation; evacuating and
providing shelter to affected residents; and issuing emergency public
information.
The assistance of voluntary
organizations and the state are required to protect public health, safety, and
property, and to lessen or avert more severe and lasting harm to the community.
Under the Emergency Management
Act, 1976 PA 390, MCL 30.403(4), “[t]he governor shall, by executive order or proclamation, declare a state of
emergency if he or she finds that an emergency has occurred or that the threat
of an emergency exists.” Therefore, acting pursuant to the Michigan
Constitution of 1963 and Michigan law, including the Emergency Management Act,
1976 PA 390, MCL 30.401 to 30.421, I order the following:
1. A state of emergency is declared for Wayne
County.
2. The Emergency Management and Homeland Security
Division of the Department of State Police shall coordinate and maximize all
state efforts and may call upon all state departments to utilize available
resources to assist in the designated area pursuant to the Michigan Emergency
Management Plan.
3. The state of emergency is terminated at such
time as the threats to public health, safety, and property caused by the
emergency no longer exist, and appropriate programs have been implemented to
recover from the effects of this emergency, but in no case later than May 13,
2019, unless extended as provided by 1976 PA 390, as amended.
Given under my hand and the great
seal of the State of Michigan.
Date: May 3, 2019
Gretchen
Whitmer
[SEAL] Governor
By
the Governor:
Jocelyn
Benson
Secretary
of State
The executive order was referred
to the Committee on Government Operations.
The following message from the Governor
was received and read:
May 3, 2019
I respectfully submit to the
Senate the following appointment to office pursuant to Executive Order
No. 2002-06, MCL 256.571:
Governor’s
Traffic Safety Advisory Commission
Sheriff Michael J. Poulin of 401
Ruddiman Drive, North Muskegon, Michigan 49445, county of Muskegon, succeeding
Sheriff Matthew Saxton whose term will expire May 27, 2019, appointed to
represent local units of government for a term commencing May 28, 2019 and
expiring May 27, 2022.
Respectfully,
Gretchen
Whitmer
Governor
The appointment was referred to
the Committee on Advice and Consent.
Recess
Senator MacGregor moved that the
Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The motion prevailed, the time
being 10:11 a.m.
The Senate was called to order by
the President, Lieutenant Governor Gilchrist.
By unanimous consent the Senate
returned to the order of
Motions and Communications
The following communication was
received and read:
Office of the Senate Majority
Leader
May 6, 2019
Pursuant to MCL 752.973, I
nominate the following individuals to the Human
Trafficking Commission.
Judy Emmons
Shari Montgomery
Sincerely,
Mike
Shirkey
16th
Senate District
Senate
Majority Leader
The communication was referred to
the Secretary for record.
Senate
Bill No. 1
Senate
Bill No. 292
Senate
Bill No. 295
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
By unanimous consent the Senate
proceeded to the order of
General Orders
The motion
prevailed, and the President, Lieutenant Governor Gilchrist, designated Senator
Horn as Chairperson.
After some
time spent therein, the Committee arose; and the President, Lieutenant Governor
Gilchrist, having resumed the
Chair, the Committee reported back to the Senate, favorably and without
amendment, the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 295, entitled
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328,
entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending section 159g (MCL 750.159g), as
amended by 2014 PA 300.
The bill was placed on the order of
Third Reading of Bills.
Senate Bill No. 1, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218,
entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” by amending sections 3148 and 3157 (MCL
500.3148 and 500.3157), and by adding sections 3100, 3107c, 3109b, and 3157a.
Substitute (S-1)
The following are the amendments to the substitute recommended by the
Committee of the Whole:
1. Amend
page 5, following line 12, by inserting:
“Sec.
2105. (1) No A policy of
automobile insurance or home insurance shall must not be offered,
bound, made, issued, delivered or renewed in this state on and after January
1, 1981, except in conformity with unless the policy conforms to this
chapter. This chapter shall not apply to policies of automobile insurance or
home insurance offered, bound, made, issued, delivered or renewed in this state
before January 1, 1981.
(2)
This chapter shall DOES not
apply to insurance written on a group, franchise, blanket policy, or similar
basis which THAT offers home
insurance or automobile insurance to all members of the group, franchise plan,
or blanket coverage who are eligible persons. However, section 2111(4), with
respect to sex, applies to automobile insurance written on a group, franchise,
blanket policy, or similar basis.”
2. Amend
page 5, following line 17, by inserting:
“Sec.
2108. (1) On the effective date of a manual of classification, manual of rules
and rates, rating plan, or modification of a manual of classification, manual
of rules and rates, or rating plan that an insurer proposes to use for
automobile insurance or home insurance, the insurer shall file the manual or
plan with the director. Each filing under this subsection must state the
character and extent of the coverage contemplated. An insurer that is subject
to this chapter and that maintains rates in any part of this state shall at all
times maintain rates in effect for all eligible persons meeting the
underwriting criteria of the insurer.
(2) An
insurer may satisfy its obligation to make filings under subsection (1) by
becoming a member of, or a subscriber to, a rating organization licensed under
chapter 24 or chapter 26 that makes the filings, and by filing with the
director a copy of its authorization of the rating organization to make the
filings on its behalf. This chapter does not require an insurer to become a
member of or a subscriber to a rating organization. An insurer may file and use
deviations from filings made on its behalf. The deviations are subject to this
chapter.
(3) A filing under this section
must be accompanied by a certification by or on behalf of the insurer that, to
the best of the insurer’s information and belief, the filing conforms to the
requirements of this chapter.
(4) A filing under this section
must include information that supports the filing with respect to the
requirements of section 2109. The information may include 1 or more of the
following:
(a) The experience or judgment of
the insurer or rating organization making the filing.
(b) The interpretation of the
insurer or rating organization of any statistical data it relies on.
(c) The experience of other
insurers or rating organizations.
(d) Any other relevant
information.
(5) Except as otherwise provided
in this subsection, the department shall make a filing under this section and
any accompanying information open to public inspection on filing. An insurer or
a rating organization filing on the insurer’s behalf may designate information
included in the filing or any accompanying information as a trade secret. The
insurer or the rating organization filing on behalf of the insurer shall
demonstrate to the director that the designated information is a trade secret.
If the director determines that the information is a trade secret, the
information is not subject to public inspection and is exempt from the freedom
of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. As used in this
subsection, “trade secret” means that term as defined in section 2 of the
uniform trade secrets act, 1998 PA 448, MCL 445.1902. However, trade secret
does not include filings and information accompanying filings under this
section that were subject to public inspection before the effective date of
the amendatory act that added this sentence.January 11,
2016.
(6) An insurer shall not make,
issue, or renew a contract or policy except in accordance with filings that are
in effect for the insurer under this chapter.
(7)
A filing under this chapter must specify
that the insurer will not refuse to insure, refuse to continue to insure, or
limit the amount of coverage available because of the location of the risk, and
that the insurer recognizes those practices to constitute redlining. An insurer
shall not engage in redlining as described in this subsection.”.
Senate Bill No. 292, entitled
A bill to amend 1961 PA 236,
entitled “Revised judicature act of 1961,” by amending sections 1621 and 1627
(MCL 600.1621 and 600.1627), as amended by 1995 PA 161, and by adding section
1630.
Substitute (S-1)
Senate
Bill No. 1
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
By unanimous consent the Senate
returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senate
Bill No. 228
Senate
Bill No. 1
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third
time:
Senate Bill No. 228, entitled
A bill to create a suicide prevention commission within the legislative
council and to prescribe its powers and duties; and to prescribe the powers and
duties of certain state officers and entities.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The
bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 57 Yeas—38
Alexander Geiss MacGregor Santana
Ananich Hertel McBroom Schmidt
Barrett Hollier McCann Shirkey
Bayer Horn McMorrow Stamas
Bizon Irwin Moss Theis
Brinks Johnson Nesbitt VanderWall
Bullock LaSata Outman Victory
Bumstead Lauwers Polehanki Wojno
Chang Lucido Runestad Zorn
Daley MacDonald
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
The Senate agreed to the title of the
bill.
The motion prevailed.
Senator
Runestad’s statement is as follows:
Senate
Bill No. 228 is one of the most meaningful pieces of legislation that I will
work on this year. You may have read before that suicide is a national epidemic
and Michigan’s suicide rate is increasing at an astonishing 33 percent over a
little more than a decade. Michigan leaders often surmise that we know a lot
about this population’s depression, mental illness, addiction, hopelessness,
and suicide already. However, there are some facts about suicide that you may
be surprised to learn.
First,
suicide is not increasing in every state. As data from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention shows, although suicide is increasing nationally, in a
few states the suicide rate is actually on the decline. A second fact you may
not realize is that half of the people who die of suicide have no diagnosed
mental health condition. Intentional drug overdoses account for only one out of
ten of all suicides. And in Michigan there are more deaths by suicide each year
than traffic or gun deaths combined.
These
facts challenge a lot of our assumptions about suicides. The fact that the
majority of people who die by suicide have no mental health condition or drug
addiction is not the story we often associate with suicide attempts. We may
think we know a lot about who is committing suicide and the reasons why. Did
you know that in Michigan there are substantial increases in suicides in rural
areas, in working populations, and within certain occupations? Did you also
know that suicide is often correlated with a combination of job loss and the
loss of a relationship? The reality is that often those who die by suicide were
reliable workers, parents, and seniors with no known mental illness. These
dynamics, coupled with Michigan’s dramatic increase in suicide rates over the
last decade, underscore our need to thoroughly research the causes and
demographics of those who attempt suicide in our state and develop a state
action plan.
To turn
things around, we need accurate and extensive data. That is why I introduced
Senate Bill No. 228. This bill will bring education and data together under the
direction of a commission to examine the data, make recommendations, and ensure
proven solutions get buy-in and implementation statewide. There is currently a
patchwork of efforts across the state. For example, we developed a suicide
prevention curriculum for Michigan schools under the Department of Health and
Human Services, but the curriculum was never implemented across the state by
all of our intermediate school districts. The commission will work in
subcommittees to make sure that we are utilizing evidence-based programs for
our schools. Another example is that we have national data showing what works
for treating PTSD and depression for veterans. However, I’m told that not all
our VAs or veterans services are using that work. This commission can help
ensure that all of our veterans are getting access to what is working.
Another
example is law enforcement in the Lansing area have an opportunity to
participate in what’s called Life Savers which includes training for crisis
intervention, and works in partnership with the local health department, ISD,
and community mental health. If this is a successful model, we need a way to
share the success with the rest of the state. That is another job this
commission can undertake.
One
more example is that we have an excellent federal grant-funded suicide
prevention program at Oakland County Community Mental Health. Oakland’s success
needs to be shared with the rest of the state.
Commissions
are often criticized for being ineffectual and perpetuating themselves. For
this reason, we’ve put a sunset on this commission of four years, we’ve
directed the commission to work in subcommittees, and with an executive
committee in charge of making sure objectives are accomplished on a timeline.
Members of the commission would serve without compensation and my office has
been deluged with calls of support and interest from around the state.
We have
overwhelming support and enthusiasm to tackle this crisis in a statewide,
all-hands-on-deck approach, and I can’t convey how important this is to me
personally and how much I appreciate the Senate’s support of this bill.
Establishing this commission with this timely legislation will go a long way to
reversing these heartbreaking trends and to change the Michigan story. Bringing
together everyone in the state can turn Michigan’s terrible losses into a
lifesaving success story.
The following bill was read a third
time:
Senate Bill No. 1, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” by
amending sections 150, 2118, 2120, 3101, 3101a, 3104, 3107, 3111, 3112, 3113,
3114, 3115, 3135, 3142, 3148, 3157, 3163, 3172, 3173a, 3174, 3175, and 3177
(MCL 500.150, 500.2118, 500.2120, 500.3101, 500.3101a, 500.3104, 500.3107,
500.3111, 500.3112, 500.3113, 500.3114, 500.3115, 500.3135, 500.3142, 500.3148,
500.3157, 500.3163, 500.3172, 500.3173a, 500.3174, 500.3175, and 500.3177),
section 150 as amended by 1992 PA 182, sections 2118 and 2120 as amended
by 2007 PA 35, section 3101 as amended by 2017 PA 140, section 3101a as
amended by 2018 PA 510, section 3104 as amended by 2002 PA 662, section 3107 as
amended by 2012 PA 542, section 3113 as amended by 2016 PA 346, section 3114 as
amended by 2016 PA 347, section 3135 as amended by 2012 PA 158, section 3163 as
amended by 2002 PA 697, sections 3172, 3173a, 3174, and 3175 as amended by 2012
PA 204, and section 3177 as amended by 1984 PA 426, and by adding
sections 261, 1245, 2116b, 3107c, 3107d, 3107e, 3157a, and 3157b and
chapter 63.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Geiss offered the following
amendments:
1. Amend page 5, following line 17, by inserting:
“Sec.
2103a. As used in this chapter:
(a) “Group automobile insurance” means automobile
insurance written on a group, franchise, blanket policy, or similar basis
covering eligible employees or members, with or without their eligible
dependents, of a governmental corporation, unit, agency, or department, or to a
corporation, partnership, individual employer, or an association.
(b) “Total return rating” means the consideration of
total revenue and available assets of the insurer, including, but not limited
to, investment income, capital and surplus, underwriting and operating profits,
premium revenue, and all other reserves.
Sec. 2105. (1) No A policy of automobile insurance or
home insurance shall NOT be offered,
bound, made, issued, delivered, or
renewed in this state on and after January 1, 1981, except in conformity with
this chapter. This chapter shall DOES
not apply to policies of automobile insurance or home insurance offered,
bound, made, issued, delivered or renewed in this state before January 1, 1981.
(2) This chapter shall does
not apply to insurance written on a group, franchise, blanket policy, or
similar basis which that offers home insurance or
automobile insurance to all members of the group, franchise plan, or
blanket coverage who are eligible persons.
Sec. 2106. Except as specifically
provided in this chapter, the provisions of chapter 24 and chapter 26 shall DO not apply to automobile insurance
and home insurance. An insurer may use rates for automobile insurance or home
insurance as soon as those rates are filed. An insurer shall not use rates
for automobile insurance until those rates have been approved by the director.
To the extent that other provisions of this code act are inconsistent with the
provisions of this chapter, this chapter shall govern GOVERNS with respect to automobile
insurance and home insurance.
SEC.
2106A. TO BE AUTHORIZED TO WRITE GROUP AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE IN THIS STATE, AN
INSURER SHALL OFFER THE GROUP COVERAGE TO EVERY ELIGIBLE PERSON IN THE GROUP IN
A UNIFORM MANNER AND SHALL FOLLOW THE RATE-MAKING, UNDERWRITING, AND OTHER
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.
SEC.
2107A. (1) BY NOT LATER THAN 1 YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION
AND ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, EACH INSURER SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER SHALL FILE BASE
RATES FOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE AND SHALL MAKE FILINGS THAT CONFORM TO THIS ACT
AS AMENDED BY THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION AND THE AMENDATORY ACT
THAT ADDED SECTION 2107B.
(2)
THE DIRECTOR SHALL REVIEW A FILING SUBMITTED UNDER SUBSECTION (1) AND SHALL APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE FILING WITHIN 60
DAYS AFTER ITS SUBMISSION.
(3)
A FILING APPROVED UNDER SUBSECTION (2) MUST NOT BE REVISED FOR 12 MONTHS
AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FILING UNLESS THE REVISION MEETS EITHER OF THE
FOLLOWING:
(A)
LOWERS THE PRICE OF THE COVERAGE.
(B)
IS IN RESPONSE TO A RULING OR DECISION BY THE DIRECTOR, THE COURT, OR A HEARING
OFFICER.
(4)
A RULE CHANGE OR OTHER CHANGE FILED WITH THE DIRECTOR THAT RESULTS IN A CHANGE
IN THE COST OF COVERAGE IS CONSIDERED A REVISION IN A RATE FILING UNDER THIS
SECTION.
(5)
IF A FILING IS DISAPPROVED UNDER SUBSECTION (2), THE INSURER, WITHIN 30 DAYS
OF THE ORDER OF DISAPPROVAL, SHALL MAKE A REVISED FILING WITH THE DIRECTOR. THE
REVISED FILING IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW UNDER THIS CHAPTER IN THE SAME MANNER AS AN
ORIGINAL FILING MADE UNDER THIS CHAPTER.
Sec. 2108. (1) On EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SECTION
2107A, ON the effective date of a manual of classification, manual of rules
and rates, rating plan, or modification of a manual of classification, manual
of rules and rates, or rating plan that an insurer proposes to use for
automobile insurance or home insurance, the insurer shall file the manual or
plan with the director. Each filing under this subsection must state the
character and extent of the coverage contemplated. An insurer that is subject
to this chapter and that maintains rates in any part of this state shall at all
times maintain rates in effect for all eligible persons meeting the
underwriting criteria of the insurer.
(2) An EXCEPT FOR FILINGS CONCERNING RATES, AN insurer
may satisfy its obligation to make filings under subsection (1) by
becoming a member of, or a subscriber to, a LICENSED rating organization licensed under chapter 24 or
chapter 26 that makes the filings, and by filing with the director a copy
of its authorization of the rating organization to make the filings on its
behalf. This chapter does not require an insurer to become a member of or a
subscriber to a rating organization. An insurer may file and use deviations
from filings made on its behalf. The deviations are subject to this chapter.
(3) A filing under this section
must be accompanied by a certification by or on behalf of the insurer that, to
the best of the insurer’s information and belief, the filing conforms to the
requirements of this chapter.
(4) A filing under this section
must include information that supports the filing with respect to the
requirements of section 2109 OR 2109A,
AS APPLICABLE. The information may include 1 or more of the following:
(a) The experience or judgment of
the insurer or rating organization making the filing.
(b) The interpretation of the
insurer or rating organization of any statistical data it relies on.
(c) The experience of other
insurers. or rating
organizations.
(d) Any other relevant
information.
(5) Except as otherwise provided
in this subsection, the department shall make a filing under this section and
any accompanying information open to public inspection on filing. An insurer or
a rating organization filing on the insurer’s behalf may designate information
included in the filing or any accompanying information as a trade secret. The
insurer or the rating organization filing on behalf of the insurer shall
demonstrate to the director that the designated information is a trade secret.
If the director determines that the information is a trade secret, the
information is not subject to public inspection and is exempt from the freedom
of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. As used in this
subsection, “trade secret” means that term as defined in section 2 of the
uniform trade secrets act, 1998 PA 448, MCL 445.1902. However, trade secret
does not include filings and information accompanying filings under this
section that were subject to public inspection before the effective date of the
amendatory act that added this sentence.
(6) An insurer shall not make,
issue, or renew a contract or policy except in accordance with filings that are
in effect for the insurer under this chapter.
Sec. 2109. (1) All rates for automobile
insurance and home insurance shall be made in accordance with the following
provisions:
(a) Rates shall not be excessive,
inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. A rate shall not be held to be
excessive unless the rate is unreasonably high for the insurance coverage
provided and a reasonable degree of competition does not exist for the
insurance to which the rate is applicable.
(b) A rate shall not be held to
be inadequate unless the rate is unreasonably low for the insurance coverage
provided and the continued use of the rate endangers the solvency of the
insurer; or unless the rate is unreasonably low for the insurance provided and
the use of the rate has or will have the effect of destroying competition among
insurers, creating a monopoly, or causing a kind of insurance to be unavailable
to a significant number of applicants who are in good faith entitled to procure
that insurance through ordinary methods.
(c) A rate for a coverage is
unfairly discriminatory in relation to another rate for the same coverage if
the differential between the rates is not reasonably justified by differences
in losses, expenses, or both, or by differences in the uncertainty of loss, for
the individuals or risks to which the rates apply. A reasonable justification
shall be supported by a reasonable classification system; by sound actuarial
principles when applicable; and by actual and credible loss and expense
statistics or, in the case of new coverages and classifications, by reasonably
anticipated loss and expense experience. A rate is not unfairly discriminatory
because it reflects differences in expenses for individuals or risks with
similar anticipated losses, or because it reflects differences in losses for
individuals or risks with similar expenses.
(2) A determination concerning
the existence of a reasonable degree of competition with respect to subsection
(1)(a) shall take into account a reasonable spectrum of relevant economic
tests, including the number of insurers actively engaged in writing the
insurance in question, the present availability of such insurance compared to
its availability in comparable past periods, the underwriting return of that
insurance over a period of time sufficient to assure reliability in relation to
the risk associated with that insurance, and the difficulty encountered by new
insurers in entering the market in order to compete for the writing of that
insurance.
SEC.
2109A. (1) ALL RATES FOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE DIRECTOR
BY EXAMINING THE INSURER’S REPORT PREPARED UNDER SECTION 2128 AND ANY INPUT
RECEIVED UNDER A PUBLIC HEARING UNDER SECTION 2107B AND SHALL BE MADE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH TOTAL RETURN RATING AND THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:
(A) RATES SHALL NOT BE EXCESSIVE, INADEQUATE, OR UNFAIRLY
DISCRIMINATORY.
A RATE SHALL NOT BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR UNLESS IT IS ACTUARIALLY JUSTIFIED
BASED UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 2128. THE
DIRECTOR MAY EXAMINE THE PERCENTAGE OF UNINSURED DRIVERS IN THE STATE IN MAKING
A DETERMINATION UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION. THE PERCENTAGE OF UNINSURED DRIVERS MAY
BE OBTAINED FROM INFORMATION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, STATISTICS AND
DATA FROM THE INSURANCE INFORMATION INSTITUTE, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
(B)
A RATE SHALL NOT BE HELD TO BE INADEQUATE UNLESS THE RATE, AFTER CONSIDERATION
OF INVESTMENT INCOME AND SURPLUS, IS UNREASONABLY LOW FOR THE INSURANCE
COVERAGE PROVIDED AND IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN PROJECTED LOSSES AND EXPENSES;
OR UNLESS THE RATE IS UNREASONABLY LOW FOR THE INSURANCE PROVIDED AND THE USE
OF THE RATE HAS OR WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF DESTROYING COMPETITION AMONG
INSURERS, CREATING A MONOPOLY, OR CAUSING A KIND OF INSURANCE TO BE UNAVAILABLE
TO A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF APPLICANTS WHO ARE IN GOOD FAITH ENTITLED TO PROCURE
THAT INSURANCE THROUGH ORDINARY METHODS.
(C)
A RATE FOR A COVERAGE IS UNFAIRLY DISCRIMINATORY IN RELATION TO ANOTHER RATE
FOR THE SAME COVERAGE IF THE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE RATES IS NOT REASONABLY
JUSTIFIED BY DIFFERENCES IN LOSSES, EXPENSES, OR BOTH, OR BY DIFFERENCES IN THE
UNCERTAINTY OF LOSS, FOR THE INDIVIDUALS OR RISKS TO WHICH THE RATES APPLY. A
REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY A REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM; BY SOUND ACTUARIAL PRINCIPLES WHEN APPLICABLE; AND BY ACTUAL AND
CREDIBLE LOSS AND EXPENSE STATISTICS OR, IN THE CASE OF NEW COVERAGES AND
CLASSIFICATIONS, BY REASONABLY ANTICIPATED LOSS AND EXPENSE EXPERIENCE. A RATE
IS NOT UNFAIRLY DISCRIMINATORY BECAUSE IT REFLECTS DIFFERENCES IN EXPENSES FOR
INDIVIDUALS OR RISKS WITH SIMILAR ANTICIPATED LOSSES, OR BECAUSE IT REFLECTS
DIFFERENCES IN LOSSES FOR INDIVIDUALS OR RISKS WITH SIMILAR EXPENSES.
(2)
THE DIRECTOR SHALL NOT APPROVE A RATE INCREASE FOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE UNLESS
THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT THE DATA RECEIVED FROM THE REPORT PREPARED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2128 JUSTIFIES A RATE INCREASE. THE DIRECTOR SHALL NOT
APPROVE A RATE INCREASE BY EXAMINING ACTUARIAL DATA FROM A LINE OTHER THAN THE
INSURER’S AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE LINE OR IF THE INSURER FAILS TO FILE THE DATA
REQUIRED BY SECTION 2128. THE DIRECTOR SHALL NOT APPROVE A RATE INCREASE
IF THE DIRECTOR FINDS THE INSURER’S ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO BE EXCESSIVE.
(3)
EACH INSURER SHALL SUBMIT ANNUALLY TO THE DIRECTOR A COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF
LITIGATION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FIRST AND THIRD PARTY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
CLAIMS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OR ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING LITIGATED AND OF
AMOUNTS RESERVED TO BE USED FOR THOSE EXPENSES. THE DIRECTOR SHALL NOT APPROVE
A RATE IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LITIGATION OF FIRST
PARTY CLAIMS EXCEED 1% OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
LITIGATION OF THIRD PARTY CLAIMS. EACH AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE INSURER’S TOTAL
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES SHALL BE ALLOCATED TO EACH TERRITORY ACCORDING TO THE
INSURER’S PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF PREMIUM WRITTEN IN EACH TERRITORY. EACH
PREMIUM CHARGED WITHIN EACH TERRITORY SHALL CONTAIN AN EQUAL SHARE OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE FOR THE TERRITORY. RATES SHALL BE FILED AND CHARGED
UNDER THIS SECTION SO THAT EACH AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PREMIUM INCLUDES AN EQUAL
SHARE OF EACH INSURER’S OVERALL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE.
SEC.
2109B. (1) IF THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION HAS
VIOLATED THE AUTOMOBILE RATE-MAKING OR UNDERWRITING PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER,
THE DIRECTOR MAY ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AND ORDER THE PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION TO PAY A CIVIL FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500.00 FOR EACH VIOLATION
AND A CIVIL FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000.00 FOR EACH WILLFUL VIOLATION. A
DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF A CIVIL FINE UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE REMEDIED BY
ANY MEANS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL
600.101 TO 600.9947.
(2)
IF THE DIRECTOR FINDS THAT A VIOLATION OF THE AUTOMOBILE RATE-MAKING OR
UNDERWRITING PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER HAS OCCURRED AND THAT THE VIOLATION HAS
RESULTED IN AN INCREASE IN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PREMIUMS OR A DECREASE IN
BENEFITS, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ORDER THE INSURER TO RETURN THE PREMIUM OR THE
AMOUNT OF BENEFITS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID, ALONG WITH A SIMPLE INTEREST
CHARGE OF 12% PER ANNUM TO BE APPLIED FROM THE TIME THE PREMIUM WAS COLLECTED
OR THE BENEFIT WAS DUE OR WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE CONSUMER.
(3)
THE DIRECTOR MAY SUSPEND THE LICENSE OF AN INSURER THAT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH
THE DIRECTOR’S ORDER TO CORRECT A VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER.
Sec. 2110. (1) In developing and
evaluating rates pursuant to the standards prescribed in section SECTIONS 2109 AND 2109A, due consideration shall be given to past and
prospective loss experience within and outside this state; , to catastrophe hazards, if any; to a reasonable margin
for underwriting profit and contingencies; to dividends, savings, or unabsorbed
premium deposits allowed or returned by insurers to their policyholders,
members, or subscribers; to past and prospective expenses, both countrywide and
those specially applicable to this state exclusive of assessments under this code
ACT; to assessments under this code
ACT; to underwriting practice
and judgment; and to all other relevant factors within and outside this state.
(2) The systems of expense
provisions included in the rates for use by any insurer or group of insurers
may differ from those of other insurers or groups of insurers to reflect the
requirements of the operating methods of the insurer or group with respect to
any kind of insurance, or with respect to any subdivision or combination
thereof for which subdivision or combination separate expense provisions are
applicable.
(3) Risks may be grouped by
classifications for the establishment of rates and minimum premiums. The
classifications may measure differences in losses, expenses, or both.
Sec. 2114. (1) A person or
organization aggrieved with respect to any filing which THAT is in effect and which THAT affects the person or
organization may make written application to the commissioner DIRECTOR for a hearing on the filing.
However, the insurer or rating organization which that made the filing shall not be authorized to proceed under this
subsection. The application shall specify the grounds to be relied upon by the
applicant. If the commissioner DIRECTOR
finds that the application is made in good faith, that the applicant would
be so aggrieved if the grounds specified are established, or that the grounds
specified otherwise justify holding a hearing, the commissioner, DIRECTOR, not more than 30 days after
receipt of the application, shall hold a hearing in accordance with Act No.
306 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT OF 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 TO
24.328, upon not less than 10 days’ written notice to the applicant, the
insurer, and the rating organization which THAT made the filing.
(2) If after hearing initiated
under subsection (1) or upon the commissioner’s DIRECTOR’S own motion pursuant to Act No. 306 of the Public Acts
of 1969, as amended THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT OF 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 TO 24.328,
the commissioner DIRECTOR finds
that a filing does not meet the requirements of sections 2109, and 2109A, OR 2111, AS
APPLICABLE, the commissioner DIRECTOR
shall issue an order stating the specific reasons for that finding. The
order shall state when, within a reasonable time after issuance of the order,
the filing shall be considered no longer effective. A copy of the order shall
be sent to the applicant, if any, and to each insurer and rating organization
subject to the order. The order shall not affect a contract or policy made or
issued before the date the filing becomes ineffective, as indicated in the commissioner’s
DIRECTOR’S order.
Sec. 2115. (1) If as part of a
decision in a proceeding under section 2114, or in a separate proceeding on the
commissioner’s DIRECTOR’S own
motion, held pursuant to Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT OF 1969,
1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 TO 24.328, the commissioner DIRECTOR finds that a reasonable degree
of competition does not exist on a statewide basis with respect to automobile
insurance or home insurance, the commissioner DIRECTOR shall by order require each insurer which THAT transacts that type of HOME insurance in this state to comply
with the provisions of chapter 24 or 26. , as the case may be, with respect to that insurance which was
the subject of the commissioner’s finding. The order shall take effect not
less than 90 nor more than 150 days after the order is issued. On or after
the effective date of an order issued under this subsection, none of the
provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to the HOME insurance. which was the subject of the order.
(2) After an order issued pursuant
to UNDER subsection (1) has been
in effect for 1 year, if the commissioner
DIRECTOR has reason to
believe that there would be a reasonable degree of price competition for
the type of insurance affected by the order, or if, upon the petition of an
insurer or a resident of this state, there is a showing that there is reason to
believe that there would be a reasonable degree of price competition, for that type of insurance, the
commissioner DIRECTOR shall
hold a hearing pursuant to Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, as
amended THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES ACT OF 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 TO 24.328, to determine if
a reasonable degree of price competition would exist if the order were no
longer in effect. The hearing shall be held upon not less than 20 days’ written
notice to each insurer subject to the order and upon not less than 20 days’
notice in not less than 3 newspapers of general circulation within this state.
(3) If the commissioner DIRECTOR finds after the hearing that a
reasonable degree of price competition would exist, the commissioner DIRECTOR shall by order state when, not
less than 90 nor more than 150 days after issuance of a new order, the
preceding order will no longer be effective. On and after the effective date of
an order issued under this subsection, the provisions of this chapter shall be
applicable to the type of HOME insurance. which was the subject of the
order.”.
2. Amend page 6, line 1, by inserting:
“SEC.
2111F. (1) BY 90 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED
THIS SECTION, AN INSURER SHALL FILE RATES FOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE THAT REFLECT
FOR ALL COVERAGES AN OVERALL AVERAGE RATE REDUCTION OF 50% OR MORE OF THE
AVERAGE RATE CHARGED FOR ALL COVERAGES BY THE AUTOMOBILE INSURER ON MAY 1,
2019. THE RATE REDUCTION OR PREMIUM FOR A SPECIFIED INSURED MAY VARY BECAUSE OF
DISCOUNTS, SURCHARGES, APPLICATION OF RATING FACTORS, AND COVERAGE SELECTION.
(2)
THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ALL POLICIES OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE OR HOME INSURANCE
OFFERED, BOUND, MADE, ISSUED, DELIVERED OR RENEWED IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING
AUTOMOBILE OR HOME INSURANCE WRITTEN ON A GROUP, FRANCHISE, BLANKET POLICY, OR
SIMILAR BASIS.”.
3. Amend page 10, following line 3, by inserting:
“Sec.
2127. The commissioner DIRECTOR may
by ORDER OR rule prospectively
require insurers, rating organizations, and advisory organizations to collect
and report data only to the extent necessary to monitor and evaluate the
automobile and home insurance markets in this state. The commissioner DIRECTOR shall authorize the use of
sampling techniques in each instance where sampling is practicable and
consistent with the purposes for which the data are to be collected and
reported. ORDERS ISSUED OR RULES
PROMULGATED UNDER THIS SECTION ARE IN ADDITION TO, AND DO NOT REPLACE, THE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 2128.
SEC.
2128. ON OR BEFORE APRIL 1 OF EACH YEAR, EACH INSURER WHO ISSUES AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE IN THIS STATE SHALL FILE WITH THE DIRECTOR ON FORMS PRESCRIBED BY THE
DIRECTOR, THE FOLLOWING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE DATA, BY TERRITORY, FOR THE PRIOR
CALENDAR YEAR:
(A)
WITH RESPECT TO PERSONAL PROTECTION INSURANCE COVERAGE:
(i) THE NUMBER OF CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL
PROTECTION INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE.
(ii) THE NUMBER OF CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL
PROTECTION INSURANCE BENEFITS THAT ARE CLOSED WITHOUT PAYMENT.
(iii) THE NUMBER OF CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL
PROTECTION INSURANCE BENEFITS THAT INVOLVE SOME FORM OF LITIGATION AND ARE
CLOSED WITHOUT PAYMENT.
(iv) THE NUMBER OF CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL
PROTECTION INSURANCE BENEFITS THAT INVOLVE LITIGATION AND FOR WHICH PAYMENT IS
MADE AFTER LITIGATION COMMENCES, INCLUDING THE LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN THE
FILING OF THE CLAIM AND THE FIRST PAYMENT.
(v) THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST CHARGES PAID
ON CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION INSURANCE BENEFITS AND THE NUMBER OF CASES
FOR WHICH INTEREST CHARGES HAVE BEEN PAID.
(vi) THE LITIGATION COSTS FOR CLAIMS FOR
PERSONAL PROTECTION INSURANCE BENEFITS.
(vii) THE NUMBER OF CASES GOING TO
VERDICT AND THE AMOUNT OF THE VERDICT IN THOSE CASES WHERE AN AWARD IS MADE.
(viii) THE NUMBER OF VERDICTS OF NO CAUSE
OF ACTION.
(ix) THE NUMBER OF CASES WHERE ATTORNEY
FEES ARE PAID, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ATTORNEY FEES PAID, AND THE AMOUNT OF
ATTORNEY FEES PAID FOR EACH CASE WHERE FEES WERE PAID.
(B)
WITH RESPECT TO RESIDUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE:
(i) THE NUMBER OF THIRD PARTY AUTOMOBILE
BODILY INJURY TORT CLAIMS CLOSED BY PAYMENT TO THE CLAIMANT BEFORE THE
COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION AND A BREAKDOWN OF HOW MANY OF THESE CLAIMS WERE
DEATH THRESHOLD CLAIMS, SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF BODY FUNCTION THRESHOLD CLAIMS,
AND PERMANENT SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT THRESHOLD CLAIMS.
(ii) THE NUMBER OF THIRD PARTY AUTOMOBILE
BODILY INJURY TORT CLAIM LAWSUITS FILED, AND A BREAKDOWN OF HOW MANY WERE FILED
FOR DEATH THRESHOLD CLAIMS, SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF BODY FUNCTION THRESHOLD
CLAIMS, AND PERMANENT SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT THRESHOLD CLAIMS.
(iii) THE NUMBER OF THIRD PARTY
AUTOMOBILE BODILY INJURY TORT CLAIMS CLOSED BY PAYMENT TO THE CLAIMANT AFTER
THE COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION AND A BREAKDOWN OF HOW MANY OF THESE CLAIMS WERE
DEATH THRESHOLD CLAIMS, SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF BODY FUNCTION THRESHOLD CLAIMS,
AND PERMANENT SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT THRESHOLD CLAIMS.
(iv) THE DOLLAR AMOUNT PAID TO CLAIMANTS
TO SETTLE THIRD PARTY AUTOMOBILE BODILY INJURY TORT CLAIMS BEFORE AND AFTER
LITIGATION HAD BEEN COMMENCED AND A BREAKDOWN OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS PAID FOR
DEATH THRESHOLD CLAIMS, SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF BODY FUNCTION THRESHOLD CLAIMS,
AND PERMANENT SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT THRESHOLD CLAIMS.
(v) THE NUMBER AND DOLLAR AMOUNT PAID OR
RESERVED FOR ALL BODILY INJURY CLAIMS SET UP OR OPENED, INDICATING THE NUMBER
AND DOLLAR AMOUNT OF RESERVES FOR CLAIMS REMAINING OPEN AT THE END OF THE
REPORTING PERIOD.”.
4. Amend
page 78, following line 25, by inserting:
“Enacting section 1. Sections 2107 and 2131
of the insurance code of 1956, 1956 PA 218, MCL 500.2107 and 500.2131, are
repealed.” and renumbering the remaining enacting section.
The amendments were not adopted, a
majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Chang requested the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the
members present voting therefor.
The
amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting
therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 58 Yeas—16
Alexander Bullock Hollier Moss
Ananich Chang Irwin Polehanki
Bayer Geiss McCann Santana
Brinks Hertel McMorrow Wojno
Nays—22
Barrett LaSata Nesbitt Stamas
Bizon Lauwers Outman Theis
Bumstead Lucido Runestad VanderWall
Daley MacDonald Schmidt Victory
Horn MacGregor Shirkey Zorn
Johnson McBroom
Excused—0
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
Senator Bullock offered the following
amendment:
1. Amend page 79, following line 2, by inserting:
“Enacting section 2. This amendatory act
does not take effect unless Senate Bill No. 88 of the 100th Legislature is enacted into law.”
The amendment was not adopted, a
majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Chang requested the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the
members present voting therefor.
The
amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting
therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 59 Yeas—16
Alexander Bullock Hollier Moss
Ananich Chang Irwin Polehanki
Bayer Geiss McCann Santana
Brinks Hertel McMorrow Wojno
Nays—22
Barrett LaSata Nesbitt Stamas
Bizon Lauwers Outman Theis
Bumstead Lucido Runestad VanderWall
Daley MacDonald Schmidt Victory
Horn MacGregor Shirkey Zorn
Johnson McBroom
Excused—0
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The
bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 60 Yeas—24
Barrett Johnson McBroom Shirkey
Bizon LaSata Nesbitt Stamas
Bumstead Lauwers Outman Theis
Daley Lucido Runestad VanderWall
Hollier MacDonald Santana Victory
Horn MacGregor Schmidt Zorn
Nays—14
Alexander Bullock Irwin Moss
Ananich Chang McCann Polehanki
Bayer Geiss McMorrow Wojno
Brinks Hertel
Excused—0
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
Senator
Hollier offered to amend the title to read as follows:
A bill
to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” by amending
sections 150, 2105, 2108, 2118, 2120, 3101, 3101a, 3104, 3107, 3111, 3112,
3113, 3114, 3115, 3135, 3142, 3148, 3157, 3163, 3172, 3173a, 3174, 3175, and
3177 (MCL 500.150, 500.2105, 500.2108, 500.2118, 500.2120, 500.3101, 500.3101a,
500.3104, 500.3107, 500.3111, 500.3112, 500.3113, 500.3114, 500.3115, 500.3135,
500.3142, 500.3148, 500.3157, 500.3163, 500.3172, 500.3173a, 500.3174,
500.3175, and 500.3177), section 150 as amended by 1992 PA 182, section 2108 as
amended by 2015 PA 141, sections 2118 and 2120 as amended by 2007 PA 35,
section 3101 as amended by 2017 PA 140, section 3101a as amended by 2018 PA
510, section 3104 as amended by 2002 PA 662, section 3107 as amended by 2012 PA
542, section 3113 as amended by 2016 PA 346, section 3114 as amended by 2016 PA
347, section 3135 as amended by 2012 PA 158, section 3163 as amended by
2002 PA 697, sections 3172, 3173a, 3174, and 3175 as amended by 2012 PA 204,
and section 3177 as amended by 1984 PA 426, and by adding sections 261, 1245,
2116b, 3107c, 3107d, 3107e, 3157a, and 3157b and chapter 63.
The
amendment to the title was adopted.
The
Senate agreed to the title as amended.
Protests
Senators
McMorrow, Bayer, Irwin, Hertel, Moss, Chang, Geiss and Bullock, under their
constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the
passage of Senate Bill No. 1 and moved that the statements they made during the
discussion of the bill be printed as their reasons for voting “no.”
The
motion prevailed.
Senator
McMorrow’s statement, in which Senator Bayer concurred, is as follows:
As
someone new to the Legislature I was excited to take on this important issue
facing Michigan residents. I was excited for the opportunity to work together
in a bipartisan fashion to find solutions for our residents.
So you
can imagine my disappointment when yesterday we found these bills would be
taken up, possibly moving forward all the way as they have, to a vote on the
floor and that last night was the first time I’d seen any of this language on a
78-page bill that wasn’t even given up to us to review until 7 p.m. last night.
And worse, there was absolutely no attempt to bring us
into the conversation about this issue, which begs the question, to me – Why
don’t the 280,000 residents in cities like Berkley, Clawson, Royal Oak, and
Troy get a voice and a seat at the table in a conversation that’s been abundantly clear
is one of the most important issues facing our state?
The overwhelming consensus from my colleagues is that
their residents want to see rate reductions. And that we can all agree on.
There is even a campaign out on social media using the hashtag “if my rates
were lower” asking residents what they would do with the cost savings, and I
love that, collecting stories and involving the community.
One
woman said she’d take a trip up north. Another resident said he’d buy a new
Michigan-made car. Others said they would pay off bills or spend more time with
their kids, which is why it is so disconcerting to me that there is nothing,
not one thing in Senate Bill No. 1 that would guarantee rate reductions – that
would mandate that insurance companies pass their cost savings outlined in this
bill to their consumers.
It is
disingenuous to claim that this bill guarantees rate reductions to our
residents when the only guarantees in this bill are drastic cuts to coverage
and significantly reduced costs for insurance companies.
What
does this mean? That there is a very real possibility that all of our residents
will have their coverage slashed with no cost savings whatsoever.
In its
current form all the bill does is allow insurance companies to increase their
profit margins with no consumer protection in mind. There is also no language
in the bill about where these costs will shift. What coverage will be lost?
What will the increase be on our health insurance?
For
example, in Colorado, a state that eliminated their no-fault system for a tort
system in 2003, there is legislation being proposed now to effectively create
an MCCA on the healthcare side because costs there have ballooned to an
insurmountable rate.
Shifting
costs is not a real solution for the residents of Michigan. Now there is a lot
of good work in this bill to start the conversation and I appreciate the work
that my colleagues have done thus far. But we need to work together. We need to
bring every resident’s voice to the table and we will hurt our residents if we
drastically cut their healthcare coverage without guaranteed, substantial rate
reduction.
I urge
a “no” vote on Senate Bill No. 1.
Senator
Irwin’s statement, in which Senator Hertel concurred, is as follows:
I am
disappointed to be standing here debating Senate Bill No. 1, such an important
issue that has had such a truncated and false debate and process here in the
chamber. It was rushed through committee and is now being rushed through the
floor process and I think that’s indicative of the product we have here in
front of us. There’s been no real negotiation and so all we’re left with is the
posturing and that’s what we see in Senate Bill No. 1.
But
even in the short, relatively truncated review that those of us on this side of
the aisle have had to actually read the legislation—this important legislation
that’s going to affect all 10 million people in this state—it’s obvious that it
fails to address the challenge that our citizens have with expensive auto
insurance. The bill utterly fails to mandate rate reduction and we heard a lot
about that in the previous speech just before this. I would point out that
there’s a tremendous amount of trust in this chamber of the insurance
companies—that they are going to see lower costs and then pass those lower
costs on to our residents.
I can
tell you from talking to my residents that they don’t have the same brimming
cup of trust for these insurance companies that have been overcharging them for
decades. This bill also fails because it does not require prior authorization
of rates. The best states in the country that are doing the best job of holding
down auto insurance rates for their citizens require that those rates be
justified before they’re rolled out to the citizens. This state does not do
that. This state allows insurance companies to just set their rates. There’s a
lot of trust in the market. There’s a lot of trust that these insurance
companies are just going to do the right thing, even though our citizens know
that they haven’t been for decades.
Also, this bill failed to take action on red-lining and
discrimination in insurance rates. This bill allows the use of non-driving
factors that would allow a situation where a good driver in the wrong zip code
is going to pay more than a terrible driver who lives across the street in a
better, whiter zip code. There was an amendment put on the bill that purported
to deal with red-lining. I would encourage you to read that amendment. If you
read that amendment, you’ll notice that it says nothing about stopping
red-lining. It only prevents them from refusing to insure people who live in
certain neighborhoods, and the final sentence says that the insurer recognizes
those practices that constitute red-lining. This amendment requires the
insurance companies themselves to blow the whistle on themselves while red-lining
in order for the amendment to be effective. The amendment to prevent red-lining
does nothing and red-lining and discrimination will continue in our insurance
rates with the passage of Senate Bill No. 1 meaning the citizens who need the
most relief won’t get it.
Also
there’s a huge giveaway to the insurance companies—I haven’t heard anybody talk
about it; I haven’t heard this resolved yet—at the end of the day, when this
MCCA has money left over, what happens to that money? That money gets pocketed by
the insurance companies is what happens. For our citizens who have been
overpaying rates for MCCA for years, every year, the MCCA revises their actual
costs to be dramatically lower than their estimated costs. Every year, year
after year.
The reason that I’m most opposed to this legislation is
because this fails our neighbors who are catastrophically injured. You might
say, sure, it’s only one percent of accident victims who are catastrophically injured but these people have
their lives and their family’s lives turned upside-down. Right now in Michigan,
those folks get the kind of attendant care, they get someone to come and help
them toilet. They get someone to come and help them get out of bed in the
morning. This bill is going to take that away from those catastrophically
injured people and their families. It’s going to leave their families in
Medicaid to care for them. You all know that our Medicaid budget is a mess. You
know that we’re not providing the kind of support to our vulnerable citizens that
we need to and now, we’re going to put more pressure on Medicaid to pick up the
freight that we’re relieving from these insurance companies?
I can’t
believe this. This is all about foisting the liability of the dramatically
injured people from car accidents off the backs of the insurance companies who
have been paid for that and putting it on the backs of the Medicaid program
where people will get worse care and the taxpayers will fund it. Are you ready
to tell those families that they can’t get the attendant care they need? Are
you ready to tell that mother of an injured daughter that they have to quit
their job to stay home and make sure their daughter can get out of bed in the
morning or wipe their behind? That’s what this is going to do. That’s the kind
of pain that this is going to bring on our people, and this bill utterly fails
to address any of the real problems and the reason it utterly fails is because
there’s been no real negotiation on how to fix these problems for our people.
It’s just been complete trust in the insurers who have sent their message to
this chamber.
I leave
with this—I urge you all to vote “no.” This bill is going to mean that
insurance companies win and Michigan citizens lose.
Senator
Moss’ statement is as follows:
I’m
rising to speak against Senate Bill No. 1 and I’m speaking on behalf of the car
accident victims that I know, especially Grant Anderson, who was a friend of
mine in high school.
In high
school, Grant was charismatic, charming, and incredibly musically gifted. We were
both in several theatre productions together and he had this beautiful singing
voice. He played the piano and even taught me how to plunk out a few songs that
I can still remember how to play. He was that kid in high school who really had
everything going for him.
And in
August of 2007 when we were in college, Grant was returning from Bible youth
camp in Ontario, heading into Michigan, when
he was blinded by the summer sun and rear-ended into the back of a semi at full
speed. He was trapped under the truck for an hour as seven crew members rescued
him from his own car.
In the
early days of social media activism in 2007, Grant’s sister started a Facebook
group called “Prayers for Grant” – because he suffered a traumatic brain
injury, was in a coma for six weeks, he was in grave condition, he was expected
not to survive, and that’s all we could do, was pray.
But
prayers were answered, Mr. President, in the form of his auto no-fault
insurance.
Through
countless hours of surgery, medical procedures, and therapy, Grant survived,
and he’s made a dramatic, significant progress in his condition and has
exceeded all expectations. He had a portion of his skull removed, which
actually saved his life. It took Grant a year to learn to sit up and then walk
with a cane while somebody held his belt. Twelve years later from this
accident, he’s still working on his improvement.
Grant
would not have had that life-saving medical care if he had capped his medical
coverage after his accident, or if the unlimited system collapsed because too
many others capped their coverage. The unlimited system is there because people
are in it and this idea that it’s choice, it’s not choice for me when I choose
the unlimited system and people leave it for a capped system.
For the four years that I’ve been here, and longer, the
majority has allowed this conversation of insurance reform to poison the public
with toxicity about no-fault. Just this year, just at the end of March, I got a
Facebook message to my office account from a constituent who pleaded with me to
end no-fault. He called it a failure, and then in the next sentence, he
lamented that no-fault allows zip code discrimination in Oak Park to
increase his rates. I feel him. I live five streets away from Eight Mile Road
in Southfield and the discriminatory red-lining that unjustly impacts Detroit
enters into my district as well in Southfield and Oak Park and Ferndale
and elsewhere.
But
gutting no-fault and life-saving medical coverage will not end red-lining. It
will not even guarantee rate reduction. It will not end the discriminatory
practices that plague the residents of my district which is exactly what some
of us on this side of the aisle have proposed to ban. And it will not reform
all of the inefficiencies in the insurance industry that keep our rates high.
One of
the people who knows this best is Grant’s father, who I spoke with yesterday.
He spent 30 years working in the insurance industry. An example he gave me: for
years the insurance company refused to provide the Anderson family with the
handicap accessible van, instead spending hundreds of dollars each time Grant
travels to appointments. It has spent thousands and thousands of dollars on
travel when they could have provided a van that would have lasted just as long.
And twelve years later the Andersons are still in negotiation for a van that
would save everyone in this system money and time.
The
insurance industry says no-fault costs are unsustainable but none of the areas
of this legislation reforms the expensive, dumb, bad practices. Instead the
solution is just throw out the whole system entirely. This is a particularly
cruel punishment to impose on Michigan auto-accident victims, especially Grant,
given the circumstances of his accident.
Because
his accident happened in Canada, the Canadian government would have settled to
pay for Grant’s medical care for the rest of his life. His family irreversibly
waved that settlement because they knew that Michigan’s premier auto no-fault
system would cover Grant’s needs and expenses.
Now
here we are debating legislation in Michigan to reduce coverage, to pull the
rug out from families like Grant if their current coverage collapses.
Part of
the reason, Mr. President, I am so incensed by this legislation is that Grant
and I grew up within the same community. We went to the same high school. We
were involved in the same extra-curricular activities. We were friends. And
Grant didn’t have any preexisting conditions that I didn’t have, he didn’t have
any symptoms that I didn’t have. We were on the same life track and what
happened to Grant could have easily happened to me, or anyone in our high
school, or anyone in this chamber, or anyone in this state.
Through
the therapy that receives, he is able to continue to recover. He plays the
piano now with one hand and can sight-read music even though he is blind on the
left side of both of his eyes. A speech pathologist once told him that he would
never sing like he did before. Grant said “no I won’t. I’ll sing even better.”
Mr.
President, this is just one family’s story in Michigan. And up until 2007, the
Andersons were no different than the Mosses. But there are countless families
throughout the state whose life paths aren’t like mine, and they aren’t like
yours, and presumably they aren’t like everybody else in this chamber. They
took tragic twists and turns that caused them to rely on no-fault.
And for
them, I cast a “no” vote today.
Senator
Chang’s statement is as follows:
I rise
to give my “no” vote explanation regarding Senate Bill No. 1.
Michiganders
agree, and we in this chamber agree, on the goal of lowering auto insurance
rates in our state. From my first campaign until now, and certainly my last
campaign, it’s an issue that residents have talked to me about on the doors, at
community meetings, at coffee hours, and at several town halls, both ones that
I’ve hosted, and others that I’ve spoken at. And of course, living in Detroit,
I know the story of high auto insurance rates pretty well myself.
We all
support reducing rates, but we have to do it, first of all we have to actually
reduce rates, but we also have to do it in a way that’s the most responsible
for our residents. In my conversations with residents in my district, they have
had many questions about car insurance, and when they are given the opportunity
to fully engage in a conversation and actually learn the details, they
understand: proposals like this are a step backward. I do not believe that this
bill is the right way, and in fact, I don’t think, in disagreement with my
colleague from the 2nd District, that this isn’t the perfect being the enemy of
the good or anything like that, this is about this bill actually doing
considerable harm to our communities. And I believe that our residents deserve
better. Senate Bill No. 1 dramatically cuts important medical benefits without
giving Michiganders the long-term rate reductions that are truly meaningful for
their lives. The Department of Insurance and Financial Services still has no
mechanism to make sure that the consumer gets a rate reduction until we put
that into statute, and we failed to do that today. Michigan deserves better.
Senate
Bill No. 1 fails to truly address important factors in determining the high
insurance costs that many of my residents pay, simply because of what neighborhood
they live in, or literally what side of a street or corner they live on. From
zip codes to educational attainment, whether the individual is a widow, or a
veteran, to credit scores, these have been studied over and over again, and
determined to have a dramatic impact on what a driver is forced to pay. The
difference between having a poor credit score and an excellent credit score can
be nearly $3,400 in your car insurance premium. We need to fix these problems,
and in fact, we have proposals in this chamber regarding this solution, and
several members of the majority party have co‑sponsored them.
Unfortunately, this bill does not do that. Our residents deserve better.
Let’s
talk about the $65.9 million dollar increase in Medicaid costs after a 10-year
period of enactment of this bill. I echo my colleague from the 13th District,
and I believe that shifting costs is, again, not a solution. The people most
likely to take a reduced benefit option are going to be those from lower-income
households, and putting some of my residents and your residents too, into a
position where they could be bankrupt and on Medicaid, is not a solution. This
bill will likely just widen the gap that we already have between those who have
and those who are already struggling to get by. Michiganders deserve better.
Here’s
the bottom line: under this bill, the most vulnerable in our communities will
be harmed. We must take care of people in their greatest time of need, when
they suffer a traumatic car accident, and end up with a disability or brain
injury. As lawmakers, it is our responsibility to keep vulnerable populations,
the people struggling in our state, people with disabilities, first and
foremost, as we make decisions that greatly impact their lives. I don’t know
about you, but I’m here to fight for them, not their car insurance companies.
There are great bipartisan ideas about how to reform auto no-fault in this
chamber that would reduce rates through common-sense reforms that I would bet
many of us already agree on. So let’s have a real conversation about this
issue. Let’s reform auto insurance in a way that’s responsible, and doesn’t
negatively impact the most vulnerable folks in our state in their greatest time
of need.
If any
this speech sounds familiar to some of you, it’s because it’s almost identical
to my floor speech in 2017 in the House. And I have to say, it’s a bit
disappointing to me that we are here, nearly a year and a half later, voting on
a solution that is similarly irresponsible, and without the thorough and
deliberative conversations that Michiganders deserve to have on a major issue
that impacts their lives.
Colleagues,
I urge you to vote “no” on Senate Bill No. 1.
Senator
Geiss’ statement is as follows:
Colleagues,
I rise to urge a “no” vote on Senate Bill No. 1. Aside from the fact that this
substitute is roughly 79 pages long, it was just introduced. I have many
concerns with this legislation. First and foremost, this bill offers absolutely
no relief for consumers. Then it puts insurance companies’ bottom line over
drivers’ safety and well-being.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this
offers consumers a choice. But my question is: what choice? This legislation is
gambling with the dice of life. It offers consumers a shiny, pretty, allegedly
cheaper option, but potentially at the cost of their lives. It cheats them out
of coverage without spelling out the cost for those choices. Who buys something
without knowing what the cost of that thing is? That is what this legislation
is for.
When I
leave for work in the morning, as all of you, I know roughly what to expect on
the commute. When I go to the market, I roughly know how much the weekly
groceries are going cost. But like any of us, we don’t know everything. I
cannot comprehend the idea that—heaven forbid—any one of us get into a car
accident that leaves us with a life-altering injury, or any of our loved ones.
This legislation does not fully address sky-rocketing medical costs. It will
drain the state’s Medicaid budget when a person’s insurance coverage runs out,
but they still need medical care.
Colleagues, I simply cannot comprehend sitting somewhere
in an ivory tower, collecting a six-figure paycheck on the backs on someone’s
loved one who lays in a hospital bed, hoping they will live to see another day.
The Governor asked us to meaningfully eliminate redlining
and meaningfully prohibit insurance companies from using non-driving factors.
We have not. The Governor sought more transparency in the Michigan Catastrophic
Claims Association. This bill is ending its operations instead. The Governor
also asked us to empower the state’s insurance commissioner to not just look at
rates but scrutinize them and that’s not happening either.
But the
Department of Insurance and Financial Services has told us—point blank—that
they can only do what they are statutorily authorized to do. We could empower
them to set rates; we could empower them to do the consumer protection on the
front by changing from a received-file system to a prior-approval system. But we
are not.
It is for these reasons, and may more, that I will be
voting “no” on this legislation and I would urge my colleagues to join me in
that vote until we have something that is real reform that reduces the costs
for our residents.
Senator
Bullock’s statement is as follows:
This is
about more than just affordable car insurance. As a Detroiter, guaranteed rate
reductions in premiums and the non-driving factors are paramount. And at the
crux, bipartisanship should be at the front of this. This is about affordable
auto-insurance and the ending discriminatory and predatory practices for the
citizens of my district, the city of Detroit and elsewhere in the state of
Michigan. That’s what I was elected to do, to protect the citizens from these
inhumane practices.
I
cannot in good conscience give the auto-insurers a get-around, if you will. I
cannot in good conscience give the citizens yet another hollow promise then be
preyed upon on the back end with loophole legalese and practically
unenforceable laws.
The bill references the current law, the current system
with the Department of Insurance and Financial Services. The current law is not
sufficient and has not been sufficient. It has failed the citizens of Detroit
and the state of Michigan. So to continue down this same path without the key
mechanisms and some sort of guarantee is insanity.
Even
when and where agencies were to provide consumer protections, they appear to
align with the industry, whom through the proposed legislation has once again
been given a windfall. And for the consumer, no relief in sight. No relief to
these civil right infractions and historical racial redlining, and through the
modern day redlining where non-driving factors that fundamentally have
absolutely no bearing on the individual’s driving abilities or ability to
purchase these unguaranteed premiums - credit ratings used to penalize those
who struggle the most as well as those unrelated factors of gender, education,
location, and marital status, have not been constructively stricken from this
bill or fruitfully been addressed in detail with less than 24-hours’ notice to
even review or vet. So we have to reevaluate what these 40-plus years of disenfranchising at-risk communities, especially
communities of color, and the generational hardship caused by these reckless
predatory laws has done and has divided us. But we all recognize that something
needs to be done.
So I say again, guaranteed rate reductions and premiums
and non-driving factors are at the crux of bipartisanship. If it’s not
bipartisan, it’s not fair. If it’s not fair, it’s not affordable. If it’s not
affordable, it’s immoral.
Senators Geiss, Nesbitt, Hertel,
Hollier and Horn asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements
and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Geiss’ statement is as follows:
Today I rise to offer an amendment that
does what our residents have long asked for—guaranteed rate relief for auto
insurance customers.
My constituents work hard for every
dollar they earn. They’re the people making your cars and working the midnight
shift. They’re the people working around the clock at DTW. They’re our school
teachers, our nurses, our local small business owners, and other working folks
who just want to live their lives and raise healthy, happy families. But it’s
increasingly difficult to do that when you’re just getting by a significant
percentage of your household budget is your auto insurance bill.
So, I offer this
amendment to guarantee a 50-percent rate reduction for drivers. And to further
show that we have their backs, this amendment would require the Insurance
Commissioner to give prior approval of rates set by insurance companies, much
like any other entity in government, the Public Service Commission, already
does for electricity rates.
I’m asking for you to show that you’re
not just here for the bottom line of insurance companies, but also for the
wallets and bank accounts of the vast majority of customers. I ask for your
support on my amendment.
Senator Nesbitt’s first statement is as
follows:
Currently when you purchase any other
insurance, there are virtually unlimited other options whether it is life
insurance, like my wife and I just purchased a few weeks ago for our expected
child, or other options. The same will be true for drivers shopping around for
auto insurance. A family with multiple new cars, with multiple drivers, who
want the maximum comp and collision will have that choice, and we will see a
little less savings than those who are driving a 20-year-old Buick from 1997
might want the limited PLPD option and would see a 70 or 80 percent savings.
Giving drivers unlimited options means there will be unlimited levels of
savings, depending on their choices. I urge a “no” vote on this amendment.
Senator Hertel’s statement is as
follows:
I rise to support the Bullock
amendment. I appreciate this discussion on reform but any discussion on
insurance reform should focus on things that will be good for the people. The
Bullock amendment would tie-bar this bill to Senate Bill No. 88 which would
limit the factors that can be considered when determining insurance rates.
People’s insurance rates should only be based on factors that are actually
relevant to driving, but too many Michiganders are paying more for reasons that
have nothing to do with that—nothing to do with how many tickets they have,
nothing to do with how many accidents they’ve had.
This amendment would ensure that
Michiganders are not charged more for insurance just because of their gender,
zip code, credit score, marital status, or other factors that are not related
to driving. Colleagues, in some extreme examples we have seen under the current
system where someone with a DUI pays less than a woman living in the city of
Detroit who has bad credit. Nobody—nobody—could believe that that is fair.
In this body, we don’t work for the
insurance companies, we don’t work for those who are standing outside and
asking us to vote “yes.” In this body, we work for the people. The people
deserve real insurance reform. Everyone agrees the current system is broken and
I firmly believe that if we all sat down, we could come up with a better
solution than this. But, we can’t fix this without providing real reforms for
the people of this state. I appreciate the work that’s been done so far but we
have to stop listening to those who are out there and start listening to our
own constituents and remember that when we sit in this body, we work for them
and real insurance reform guarantees that they are protected.
Senator Nesbitt’s second statement is
as follows:
Last week, Governor—our Governor, my
Governor—directed the Department of Insurance and Financial Services to examine
the use of non-driving factors in the setting of insurance rates. Such
practices are very common in all financial products such as home loans or other
insurance products and are allowed in just about all the states. It seems
appropriate that we wait until the Governor’s analysis is complete before he
Legislature takes the kind of steps proposed by this amendment. I urge a “no”
vote on this amendment.
Senator Hollier’s statement is as
follows:
I’d like to speak to this by beginning
to reference an act that is particularly important to me. The Civil Rights Act
of 1964 was landmark legislation. It’s something that we all know and something
that we all care about. What you may not know is that it took three tries. The
first one in 1957 was garbage. It did not, in any way, shape, or form,
eliminate simple things, like saying that lynching was illegal or unacceptable.
They came back again in 1960 and did a little bit of a better job. But still,
provided little to no coverage. Here we are now in 2019 and I will say we still
have a long, long way to go.
I’m 33 years old and in the home I live
in, every year, I pay $7,500 per year in auto insurance, and I have cheap auto
insurance in my neighborhood—some of the cheapest. We have cars that for the
most part are almost a decade old—two of which are over a decade old. When I
talk, when I go run, when I talk to folks, they are talking about the
incredible cost of auto insurance. It’s a problem for them, one they cannot
deal with every day, one that we cannot continue to say we are looking for a
better solution because I am. If there were a better solution, I would have
voted “yes.” I will vote “yes.” On every amendment that came out today that my
colleagues put forward, I was a “yes” and would be on any one of those things.
A number of plans have come across and been said of that these are better
options. We should do those things. Count me in. But today I have an
opportunity to lower people’s rates. Is it the best plan? No. Does it still
have a long way to go? Absolutely. But I believe that’s what the legislative
process is here for.
President Lyndon Johnson is
categorically known for his work on the Civil Rights Act. It’s something he’s
always said he is the most proud of. But he is not the most proud of the 1964
act. He’s most proud of the one that happened in the 50s, not because it was
great but because it was garbage; because it was the hardest bill he’s ever
gotten done because never to that time, since Reconstruction, could he convince
people who were flat-out racist to come on board, and they wouldn’t. But for
that one moment, he got them to open the door and I believe that this is the
opening of the door. This is the first chance for us to amend legislation that
hasn’t changed in my lifetime.
When throughout
that entire time, over the past ten years that I’ve been working in Lansing,
every single elected member from Detroit or an urban community comes up and
says, “my number one thing is to get rid of red-lining. It’s to change the
gender gaps. It’s to make auto insurance more affordable.” Have they had better
plans? Yes. Are we going to keep working for a better one? God, I hope so.
Today, we have an opportunity to make some difference.
Just my family alone, we’re paying
$7,500 per year. If we could opt out of the PIP like more than 90 percent
of Michigan residents can, that has the potential to save us almost $4,000. I’d
opt out. My neighbors would opt out. But the reality is that the majority of
people I live near who I represent have already opted out because they aren’t
buying auto insurance. They can’t afford to buy auto insurance. Can’t drive. I
had a town hall last night. A woman came to me and said, “What’s going on with
this auto insurance? I can’t keep taking Uber. I can’t keep taking Lyft. I
can’t ride the bus to the places I need to go and I can’t afford an automobile.
Can’t afford to drive.” That’s what this is about.
This is about the beginning. I ask that
my colleagues continue to move forward with this discussion and to believe that
though this is the first step, it had better not be the last and that we will
continue to work to make sure that it’s better, that we get the type of rate
relief that all of our constituents demand.
Senator Horn’s statement is as follows:
It’s been said earlier that this makes
a great start for the conversation. Mr. President, this conversation has been going
on for a very long time. I wrote my first reform bill 2007.
We saw this freight train coming at us
way back then. The mood was a little different. We didn’t get as much
grassroots support, but things have changed. We are hearing, at our office
hours, at our town-hall meetings, in our coffee shops, at the grocery
store—wherever we go—Mr. President, we’re hearing from our residents, and they
want change.
It was brought into focus to me the day
after the election in 2014 as I was pumping gas at the 7-11 right by St. Mary’s
Hospital out on Washington Avenue in Saginaw. I had a fellow poke his head
around the gas pump. He said “are you Ken Horn, the politician guy?” I said
“yeah, I guess so.” He said “what are you going to do about car insurance?”
Here’s his story: he is a dishwasher in
the back of the house at a local kitchen. He is laid off six months out of
every year, so I probably shouldn’t tell you this, but for six months he drives
without car insurance—can’t afford it. He drives a clunker, Mr. President. You
know on the other hand, you have people that have modeled their businesses in
Michigan over this law that we have and if I give you this fictional character
of Ben the brain injury specialist who may drive a seventy or eighty thousand
dollar SUV, to him, the cost of insurance is just a first-world problem. To
Dave, the dishwasher, this is his world. This is his universe.
You know, if you
want guarantees in this bill, I can guarantee you this: you vote no, you’re
going to guarantee Dave the dishwasher and tens of thousands of people just
like him to a life of misery and dependence on government to get you back and
forth to work, maybe. He can’t drive an SUV—he can’t afford the collision.
You know, there’s people like this, you
know, the working poor that we worry about, Mr. President. And we’re giving our
people choices with that hashtag that was being ridiculed. But you know what,
there are families – single moms that are driving clunkers out there because
they can’t afford a new car because of the collision costs. They are struggling
just to pay the PIP insurance.
You know there are parents out there
who are telling their kids “I can’t afford your tuition, but I’ll help you pay
for your insurance.”
If you take a look at just what we
know, Mr. President in the catastrophic fund—the $180 a year that we’ll save. A
large family with five cars could save $900 just at a catastrophic fund, per
car per year. The total is $900—that pays
for a brand new water heater when it breaks down. They don’t have the cash to
do that right now.
You know what, we will always have an
excuse to vote “no.” And we are, in some cases, putting perfection ahead of the
good. We have people everywhere tugging on our ears, but it’s time we started
listening to the people of our districts.
This is not a hard vote for me because
it benefits the people of my district and the people of this state. And I hope
you join me in voting “yes” on this historic reform.
Senator Nesbitt’s third statement is as
follows:
Our families want
lower car insurance rates, and more options. Our families are demanding this.
Michigan drivers are burdened with the highest auto insurance rates in the
nation. The most expensive costs are borne on our families
here in Michigan, and we can all agree that Michigan drivers have the right to
be upset. They want this problem solved, and as elected officials our duty is
to solve this problem, to be responsible to find the solution.
With the passage of Senate Bill No. 1,
Michigan drivers would have the ability to choose the level of coverage that
fits their budget, their needs, instead of having the state dictate to them
what level of their coverage they are required to have. This legislation will
put an end to the bloated costs of health care within the system. The cost of
the exact same medical procedures should not cost any more simply because
happens in a car accident. By leveling the playing field and bringing down the
cost of auto insurance, we will have lower rates, provide choice, crack down on
fraud and end lawsuit abuse.
We will no longer
require every driver in the state to purchase a one-size-fits-all policy.
Drivers will be empowered, families will be empowered, and seniors will be
empowered to select the coverage they both need and can afford. Seniors will no
longer be forced to purchase high-priced automobile insurance on top of their
Medicare coverage.
This legislation will finally implement
a plan to crack down on fraud and lawsuit abuse. Our current system has been in
place for over 45 years. Every state in the nation has moved away from the
archaic model, yet Michigan consumers and families are still saddled with the
exorbitant costs of this antiquated system.
Michigan has made many dramatic strides
in recent years in providing opportunity to our workers and families, our
unemployment rate has dropped. If we truly want to keep and attract job
providers and a talented workforce, we must provide better options for our
residents. Rates are so high for this government-mandated product that the
current system creates more incentives for drivers to drive uninsured that it
does for them to purchase insurance. We are in a death spiral right now in our
auto insurance industry. Higher rates have led to less people having insurance,
and less people having insurance has led to higher rates. It’s time for this
death spiral to end.
Our constituents are fed up with paying
the highest-in-the-nation rates. They are rightfully demanding we take action.
With any major reforms—any major reforms we work on—those who are benefitting
from the status quo will understandably raise concerns.
Here is the bottom line: The current
system in unaffordable it’s failing the people, the families of Michigan, so we
have an obligation to fix this system. The bill will provide consumers with significant
savings, while still offering the highest minimum coverage of any state.
Passage of this bill will result in lower rates, provide unlimited options, and
offer the highest minimum coverage. We have an obligation to our constituents
to deliver these reforms.
I ask for your “yes” vote and to side
with Michigan drivers, families and seniors over the failed status quo of this
current system.
By unanimous consent the Senate
proceeded to the order of
Resolutions
Senator MacGregor moved that consideration
of the following resolutions be postponed for today:
Senate Resolution No. 25
Senate Resolution No. 30
Senate Resolution No. 38
The motion prevailed.
Senate Resolution No. 45
The motion prevailed, a majority of the
members serving voting therefor.
Senate Resolution No. 45.
A resolution recognizing May 5-11, 2019, as National Travel and Tourism
Week, to draw attention to the importance of tourism to Michigan’s economy and
well-being.
Whereas, National Travel and Tourism Week, now in its 36th year, is
celebrated by the Tourism Industry Coalition of Michigan (TICOM) and Travel
Michigan; and
Whereas, A Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) study shows
tourism supports 6 percent of all jobs, directly supporting 224,476 jobs
in the state; and
Whereas, Tourism boosts the state economy by $24.7
billion and generates $2.7 billion in state and local taxes; and
Whereas, Last year, Michigan had a total of 122.4 million visits, an
increase of 3.4 million visits from the previous year and marking an eighth
straight year of growth; and
Whereas, Michigan businesses ranging from lodging to food
establishments, retailers, sporting events, and beyond all benefit from tourism, resulting in thriving communities,
hometown pride, and robust employment; and
Whereas, Travel makes us aware of the need for good roads and public
transportation; and
Whereas, Michigan has scores of destinations with festivals, museums,
and arts and cultural events that show our diversity and ethnic heritage; and
Whereas, Residents and visitors who take advantage of our hiking trails,
waterways, ski resorts, golf courses, and beaches get in touch with all the
stunning scenery that “Pure Michigan” has to offer; and
Whereas, The United States Travel Association finds
that travel can reduce stress, improve heart health, and create stronger
connections with loved ones, which leads to better health overall and a greater
sense of well-being; and
Whereas, Travel connects family and friends and makes lifelong memories;
and
Whereas, The social media hashtag to point out the importance of tourism
is #TravelMatters; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate, That members of this legislative body recognize
May 5-11, 2019, as National Travel and Tourism Week; and be it further
Resolved, That the people of the state of Michigan are encouraged to
explore “Pure Michigan” year-round to take advantage of its four glorious
seasons.
The question being on the
adoption of the resolution,
Introduction and Referral of
Bills
Senator Lucido introduced
A bill to amend 1998 PA 58, entitled “Michigan
liquor control code of 1998,” by amending sections 415, 501, 505, 507, 509,
511, 513, 513a, 514, 514a, 515, 518, 519, 521a, 525, 531, and 533 (MCL
436.1415, 436.1501, 436.1505, 436.1507, 436.1509, 436.1511, 436.1513,
436.1513a, 436.1514, 436.1514a, 436.1515, 436.1518, 436.1519, 436.1521a,
436.1525, 436.1531, and 436.1533), section 415 as added by 2013 PA 100, section
501 as amended by 2012 PA 82, section 509 as amended by 2018 PA 37, section 513
as amended by 2018 PA 479, section 513a as added by 2011 PA 249, section 514 as
added by 2000 PA 166, section 514a as added by 2004 PA 194, section 515 as
amended by 2004 PA 192, section 518 as amended by 2010 PA 279, section 519
as amended by 2018 PA 683, section 521a as amended by 2014 PA 270, section 525
as amended by 2016 PA 434, section 531 as amended by 2014 PA 135, and section
533 as amended by 2018 PA 386.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Regulatory Reform.
Senators Wojno and Johnson introduced
A bill to amend 1954 PA 116,
entitled “Michigan election law,” (MCL 168.1 to 168.992) by adding
section 18a.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Elections.
Senator MacGregor introduced
A bill to amend 2008 PA 525,
entitled “Fostering futures scholarship trust fund act,” by amending section 7b (MCL 722.1027b), as added by 2014 PA 530.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
Senators Hollier,
Irwin, Geiss, Bullock, Alexander, Santana, Wojno, Ananich, Bayer and Schmidt
introduced
A bill to amend 1987 PA 231, entitled “An act to create
a transportation economic development fund in the state treasury; to prescribe
the uses of and distributions from this fund; to create the office of economic
development and to prescribe its powers and duties; to prescribe the powers and
duties of the state transportation department, state transportation commission,
and certain other bodies; and to permit the issuance of certain bonds,” by
amending section 9 (MCL 247.909), as amended by 2018 PA 473.
The bill was read a first and second time by title
and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Senators Hollier, Ananich, Geiss, Bullock,
Wojno, Alexander, Polehanki, Chang, Irwin, Brinks, Moss, Santana, McMorrow and
Bayer introduced
A bill to amend 1976 PA 399, entitled “Safe drinking
water act,” (MCL 325.1001 to 325.1023) by adding section 7b.
The
bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on
Environmental Quality.
Senators Bayer, Chang, Lucido,
Hollier, Polehanki, Runestad,
Bullock, Alexander, Irwin, Moss, McCann, Wojno, Hertel, Ananich, Geiss,
McMorrow and McBroom introduced
A bill to amend 1976 PA 267, entitled “Open meetings
act,” by amending sections 2 and 3 (MCL 15.262 and 15.263), section 2 as
amended by 2001 PA 38 and section 3 as amended by 2018 PA 485.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Insurance and Banking.
Senators Bayer, Chang, Lucido, Hollier,
Polehanki, Runestad, Bullock, Alexander, Irwin, Moss, McCann, Wojno, Hertel,
Ananich, Geiss, McMorrow and McBroom introduced
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance
code of 1956,” by amending sections 134 and 3104 (MCL 500.134 and 500.3104),
section 134 as amended by 1990 PA 256 and section 3104 as amended by 2002 PA
662.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Insurance and Banking.
Senators Irwin, Wojno, Bullock, Geiss,
Hollier, Brinks, Chang, Bayer, McBroom and Polehanki introduced
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health
code,” (MCL 333.1101 to 333.25211) by adding sections 2468, 2468a, 20195, and
20195a.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Health Policy and Human Services.
Senators Schmidt, Lucido, Irwin, Hollier,
Chang, Brinks and VanderWall introduced
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of
criminal procedure,” (MCL 760.1 to 777.69) by adding section 6f to chapter V.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety.
Senator Hollier introduced
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance
code of 1956,” by amending sections 2105, 2110a, 2111, and 2151 (MCL 500.2105,
500.2110a, 500.2111, and 500.2151), sections 2110a and 2111 as amended by 2012
PA 441 and section 2151 as added by 2012 PA 165, and by adding section 2111b.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Insurance and Banking.
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of
criminal procedure,” by amending section 13 of chapter II and sections 1
and 3c of chapter XI (MCL 762.13, 771.1, and 771.3c), section 13 of chapter II
as amended by 2015 PA 33, section 1 of chapter XI as amended by 2006 PA 631,
and section 3c of chapter XI as amended by 2002 PA 483.
The House of Representatives has passed the bill and ordered that it be given immediate effect.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety.
A bill to amend 1953 PA 232, entitled “Corrections code
of 1953,” by amending sections 25a, 36a, and 85 (MCL 791.225a, 791.236a, and
791.285), sections 25a and 36a as amended by 2002 PA 502 and section 85 as
added by 2006 PA 172.
The House of Representatives has passed the bill and ordered that it be given immediate effect.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety.
A bill to amend 1909 PA 283, entitled “An act to
revise, consolidate, and add to the laws relating to the establishment, opening,
discontinuing, vacating, closing, altering, improvement, maintenance, and use
of the public highways and private roads; the condemnation of property and
gravel therefor; the building, repairing and preservation of bridges;
maintaining public access to waterways under certain conditions; setting and
protecting shade trees, drainage, and cutting weeds and brush within this
state; providing for the election or appointment and defining the powers,
duties, and compensation of state, county, township, and district highway
officials; and to prescribe penalties and provide remedies,” by amending
section 10 of chapter IV (MCL 224.10), as amended by 2004 PA 516.
The House of Representatives has passed the bill and ordered that it be given immediate effect.
The bill was read a first and second time by title
and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Announcements of Printing and Enrollment
The
Secretary announced that the following House bills were received in the Senate
and filed on Thursday, May 2:
House Bill Nos. 4031 4032 4120
The Secretary announced that the following bills and
resolution were printed and filed on Thursday, May 2, and are available on
the Michigan Legislature website:
Senate Bill Nos. 294 295
Senate Resolution No. 44
House Bill Nos. 4538 4539 4540 4541 4542 4543 4544 4545 4546 4547 4548 4549 4550 4551 4552 4553 4554 4555 4556 4557 4558 4559 4560 4561 4562 4563 4564
Committee Reports
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 133, entitled
A bill
to make appropriations for the department of agriculture and rural development
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020; and to provide for the
expenditure of the appropriations.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt and Victory
Nays:
Senators Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin, McCann and Santana
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 137, entitled
A bill
to make appropriations for the department of environmental quality for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2020; and to provide for the expenditure of
the appropriations.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt, Victory, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin,
McCann and Santana
Nays:
None
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 139, entitled
A bill
to make appropriations for the department of health and human services for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2020; and to provide for the expenditure of
the appropriations.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt and Victory
Nays:
Senators Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin, McCann and Santana
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 141, entitled
A bill
to make appropriations for the department of insurance and financial services
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020; and to provide for the
expenditure of the appropriations.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The committee further recommends that
the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt, Victory, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin, McCann
and Santana
Nays:
None
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 143, entitled
A bill
to make appropriations for the department of licensing and regulatory affairs
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020; and to provide for the
expenditure of the appropriations.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt, Victory, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin,
McCann and Santana
Nays:
None
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 145, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the department of
natural resources for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020; and to provide for the
expenditure of the appropriations.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-3) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt, Victory, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin,
McCann and Santana
Nays:
None
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 148, entitled
A bill
to make appropriations for the department of talent and economic development
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020; and to provide for the
expenditure of the appropriations.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt, Victory, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin,
McCann and Santana
Nays:
None
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The
Committee on Appropriations submitted the following:
Meeting
held on Tuesday, April 30, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., Harry T. Gast Appropriations
Room, 3rd Floor, Capitol Building
Present:
Senators Stamas (C), Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt, Victory, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin,
McCann and Santana
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 134, entitled
A bill
to amend 1979 PA 94, entitled “The state school aid act of 1979,” by amending
sections 201 and 201a (MCL 388.1801 and 388.1801a), sections 201 and 201a as
amended by 2018 PA 265.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor, Nesbitt,
Outman, Schmidt and Victory
Nays:
Senators Barrett, Runestad, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin, McCann and Santana
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate Bill
No. 135, entitled
A bill
to make appropriations for the department of corrections for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2020; and to provide for the expenditure of the
appropriations.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt and Victory
Nays:
Senators Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin, McCann and Santana
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 136, entitled
A bill
to make appropriations for the department of education for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2020; and to provide for the expenditure of the
appropriations.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt and Victory
Nays:
Senators Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin, McCann and Santana
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 138, entitled
A bill
to make appropriations for the legislature, the executive, the department of
the attorney general, the department of state, the department of treasury, the
department of technology, management, and budget, the department of civil
rights, the department of talent and economic development, and certain other
state purposes for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020; to provide for
the expenditure of the appropriations; to provide for the disposition of fees
and other income received by the state agencies; and to declare the effect of
this act.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt and Victory
Nays:
Senators Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin, McCann and Santana
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 140, entitled
A bill
to amend 1979 PA 94, entitled “The state school aid act of 1979,” by amending
sections 236 and 236a (MCL 388.1836 and 388.1836a), sections 236 and 236a as
amended by 2018 PA 265.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor, Nesbitt,
Outman, Schmidt and Victory
Nays:
Senators Barrett, Runestad, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin, McCann and Santana
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The Committee
on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 142, entitled
A bill
to make appropriations for the judiciary for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2020; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt, Victory, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin,
McCann and Santana
Nays:
None
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 144, entitled
A bill
to make appropriations for the department of military and veterans affairs for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020; and to provide for the expenditure
of the appropriations.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt, Victory, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin,
McCann and Santana
Nays:
None
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 146, entitled
A bill
to amend 1979 PA 94, entitled “The state school aid act of 1979,” by amending
sections 11 and 17b (MCL 388.1611 and 388.1617b), section 11 as amended by 2018
PA 586 and section 17b as amended by 2007 PA 137.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-3) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor, Nesbitt,
Outman, Runestad, Schmidt and Victory
Nays:
Senators Barrett, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin, McCann and Santana
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 147, entitled
A bill
to make appropriations for the department of state police for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2020; and to provide for the expenditure of the
appropriations.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt, Victory, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin,
McCann and Santana
Nays:
None
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 149, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the state
transportation department for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020; and to provide for the
expenditure of the appropriations.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt and Victory
Nays:
Senators Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin, McCann and Santana
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The
Committee on Appropriations submitted the following:
Meeting
held on Wednesday, May 1, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., Harry T. Gast Appropriations
Room, 3rd Floor, Capitol Building
Present:
Senators Stamas (C), Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt, Victory, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin,
McCann and Santana
The
Committee on Insurance and Banking reported
Senate
Bill No. 1, entitled
A bill
to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” by amending
sections 3148 and 3157 (MCL 500.3148 and 500.3157), and by adding sections
3100, 3107c, 3109b, and 3157a.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Lana
Theis
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Theis, Lauwers, LaSata, Nesbitt, Daley, Barrett and Horn
Nays:
Senators Geiss, Bullock and McMorrow
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Insurance and Banking reported
Senate
Bill No. 292, entitled
A bill
to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled “Revised judicature act of 1961,” by amending
sections 1621 and 1627 (MCL 600.1621 and 600.1627), as amended by 1995 PA 161,
and by adding section 1630.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Lana
Theis
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Theis, Lauwers, LaSata, Nesbitt, Daley, Barrett and Horn
Nays:
None
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Insurance and Banking reported
Senate
Bill No. 295, entitled
A bill
to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending section
159g (MCL 750.159g), as amended by 2014 PA 300.
With
the recommendation that the bill pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Lana
Theis
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas: Senators
Theis, Lauwers, LaSata, Nesbitt, Daley, Barrett and Horn
Nays:
None
The
bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole.
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The
Committee on Insurance and Banking submitted the following:
Meeting
held on Tuesday, May 7, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., Room 1100, Binsfeld Office Building
Present: Senators Theis (C), Lauwers, LaSata, Nesbitt,
Daley, Barrett, Horn, Geiss, Bullock and McMorrow
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The
Committee on Advice and Consent submitted the following:
Meeting
held on Thursday, May 2, 2019, at 1:00 p.m., Room 1300, Binsfeld Office
Building
Present:
Senators Lucido (C), LaSata, McBroom and Hertel
Excused:
Senator Nesbitt
Administrative
Rules - Wednesday, May 8, 3:30 p.m. (CANCELED), 2:00 p.m. or
later immediately following
session, Anderson House Office Building (517) 373-5630
Economic and Small
Business Development - Thursday, May 9, 12:00 noon, Room 1200, Binsfeld
Office Building (517)
373-5314
Elections - Wednesday, May 8, 2:00 p.m.,
Room 1300, Binsfeld Office Building (517) 373-5323
Families, Seniors, and Veterans - Wednesday, May 8, 3:00 p.m.,
Room 1200, Binsfeld Office Building (517) 373-5314
Health Policy and Human Services - Thursday, May 9, 1:00 p.m., Room
1100, Binsfeld Office Building (517) 373-5323
Local Government - Thursday, May 9, 1:30 p.m., Room
1200, Binsfeld Office Building (517) 373-5314
Michigan State
Capitol Commission - Monday, May 13, 11:00 a.m., Room H-65, Capitol Building
(517) 373-0184
Senator
MacGregor moved that the Senate adjourn.
The
motion prevailed, the time being 1:09 p.m.
The
President, Lieutenant Governor Gilchrist, declared the Senate adjourned until
Wednesday, May 8, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.
MARGARET O’BRIEN
Secretary of the Senate