SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS INC V STATE OF MICHIGAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC.,
SCHNEIDER TRANSPORT, INC., SCHNEIDER
NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INC.,
SCHNEIDER TANK LINES, INC., and
SCHNEIDER SPECIALIZED CARRIERS, INC.,
FOR PUBLICATION
October 19, 2001
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY, CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY
SERVICES DEPARTMENT and MICHIGAN
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
No. 208346
Court of Claims
LC No. 96-016473 CM
ON REMAND
Updated Copy
December 21, 2001
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Doctoroff and White, JJ
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of
Yellow Freight System v Michigan, 464 Mich 21; 627 NW2d 236 (2001), petition for cert filed
70 USLW 3130 (US, August 13, 2001) (No 01-270), in which the Supreme Court reversed this
Court's decision, Yellow Freight System, Inc v Michigan, 231 Mich App 194; 585 NW2d 762
(1998), that 49 USC 11506(c)(2), recodified at 49 USC 14504(c)(2), was properly interpreted to
require that the fees charged under the Single State Registration System (SSRS) for the 1992
calendar year be no greater than those paid for the 1991 year. 464 Mich 866 (2001). In the
instant case, on the basis of the controlling authority of the earlier published Court of Appeals
decision in Yellow Freight, we reversed the Court of Claims order granting summary disposition
to defendants. Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc v Michigan, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued
May 14, 1999 (Docket No. 208346). Yellow Freight having been reversed, we now address
plaintiffs' remaining arguments for reversal.
Plaintiffs first contend that the Court of Claims erred in finding that the $10 assessment
per vehicle constitutes a fee "for the filing of proof of insurance" as permitted by 49 USC
11506(c)(2)(B)(iv). We disagree.
-1-
The federal SSRS scheme prohibits states from charging fees for "filing and maintaining
a certificate or permit" issued for interstate operations by the Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC). States are, however, permitted to charge fees "for the filing of proof of insurance." MCL
478.7 provides:
(1) A motor carrier shall not engage in the interstate or foreign
transportation of property for compensation without first having registered with
the commission and paid the required registration and vehicle fees.
(2) A motor carrier operating in this state under authority granted by the
interstate commerce commission pursuant to section 10922 of subchapter II of
chapter 109 of subtitle IV of title 49 of the United States code, 49 U.S.C. 10922,
shall file and maintain a record of that authority with the commission. A motor
carrier shall not operate within this state without first complying with this
subsection.
* * *
(4) The annual fee levied on each interstate or foreign motor carrier
vehicle operated in this state and licensed in another state or province of Canada
shall be $10.00. The commission may enter into a reciprocal agreement with a
state or province of Canada that does not charge vehicles licensed in this state
economic regulatory fees or taxes and may waive the fee required under this
subsection.
The Michigan provisions were enacted in 1988, well before the 1992 changes to the federal
scheme. Before 1992, the federal regulations permitted the states to require a motor carrier to
register and identify any vehicle as operating under the authority of the ICC, and provided for the
issuance of identification stamps by the state, or the assignment of an identification number. The
scheme permitted the state to charge up to $10 for the issuance of the stamps or number. The
Michigan Legislature has not modified MCL 478.7 following the enactment of the new federal
scheme. The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) has continued to collect the $10 fee,
treating it as a fee for the filing of proof of insurance. Plaintiffs assert that the MPSC lacks the
statutory authority to collect the $10 fee for this new purpose absent "statutory redirection from
the Legislature" after the enactment of the SSRS provisions.
In concluding that the $10 fee assessed by the MPSC did not violate the federal scheme
as an unauthorized fee, the Court of Claims observed that the procedures manual appended to the
affidavit of Thomas Lanergan, director of the Motor Carrier Regulations Division of the MPSC,
stated:
VIII. REGISTRATION RECEIPTS
A. The registration state shall collect the fee (not to exceed $10.00 per
motor vehicle) that each participating State collected or charged per motor vehicle
-2-
as of November 15, 1991. These fees shall be for filing and maintaining proof of
insurance. No other fee shall be collected or assessed either directly or indirectly.
Plaintiffs object that the manual is not an MPSC manual, but rather, is a procedures manual
developed by the National Association of State Transportation Specialists. However, it is not
disputed that the MPSC follows the manual in requiring the filing of proof of insurance and in
assessing a $10 fee for the filing. The crux of the dispute is whether the MPSC had the authority
to modify its procedures to comply with the SSRS without statutory authorization from the
Legislature.
The MPSC is charged with the "power," "authority," and "duty" to
supervise and regulate the transportation of property . . . over the public highways
of this state in all matters whether specifically mentioned herein or not, so as to: .
. . (b) protect and conserve the highways and protect the safety and welfare of the
traveling and shipping public in their use of the highways . . . . [MCL 475.2
(emphasis added).]
Requiring the filing of proof of insurance is fairly within the authority granted to the MPSC.
Further, while the present, pre-SSRS statutory provisions are clearly consistent with the
former practice of requiring registration and assessing a $10 fee for that registration, the
language is not restrictive, speaking generally of an annual fee, and does not exclude the current
post-SSRS practice of requiring filing of proof of insurance and assessing $10 for that filing.
Further, the question is one of legislative intent, and it seems clear that the Legislature intended
to assess the maximum charge permitted under the federal scheme. Thus, the Court of Claims
did not err in rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the MPSC's practice is beyond its statutory
authority and contrary to the federal statute.
Plaintiffs also contend that the Court of Claims erred in failing to order that the MPSC
refund certain overpayments. MCL 478.2 provides for a registration fee of $100. The MPSC's
internal administrative policy was to waive the $10 fee required by MCL 478.7 for vehicles
registered under MCL 478.2. In 1994, 1995, and 1996, plaintiffs erroneously paid fees under
both provisions. When notified of the error, the MPSC returned the fees for 1996, but refused to
return the fees for the earlier years. The Court of Claims did not specifically address this claim.
Defendants assert that plaintiffs' claims regarding 1994 and 1995 are untimely because
the notice required by MCL 600.6431 was not filed. However, the Court of Claims rejected
defendants' general defense under that section on the basis that defendants produced no evidence
attempting to show that they were actually prejudiced. We see no error in that ruling.
Defendants also assert that because they had the statutory authority to assess both fees and
simply declined to do so as a matter of policy, and the overpayment was voluntary rather than the
result of a miscalculation by defendants, plaintiffs have no legal basis on which to seek recovery.
Defendants do not, however, deny that for the years in question they did not charge both fees.
The cases cited by defendants in support of their position are inapposite and involve claims of
-3-
rights based on practices or policies that were changed. Here, defendants do not assert that they
changed the policy for the years at issue.
Thus, we affirm the Court of Claims decision in all respects except the denial of the
overpayment refund for the 1994 and 1995 fees.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Helene N. White
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
