O'CONNELL, P.J.

In these consolidated appeals, plaintiff/petitioner (hereafter plaintiff) appeals as of right the trial court's orders granting motions for summary disposition filed by defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) in actions in which plaintiff challenged the legality of certain financial conduct by BCBSM under the Nonprofit Health Care Corporation Reform Act, MCL 550.1101 et seq. (the Act). The appeals present two significant issues: (1) whether BCBSM violated § 207 of the Act, MCL 550.1207, when its subsidiary, the Accident Fund Insurance Company of America (the Accident Fund), purchased three for-profit insurance companies; and (2) whether Michigan's courts defer to the decisions of Michigan's administrative agencies concerning the interpretation of Michigan statutes.

Regarding the first issue, the trial court correctly determined that § 207 of the Act did not preclude the Accident Fund from acquiring the three insurance companies. Accordingly, in Docket No. 290167, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary disposition on count I. Regarding the second issue, the trial court erred by deferring to an administrative agency's interpretation of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of count II in Docket No. 290167, and remand to the trial court for a hearing de novo to determine whether BCBSM's $125 million contribution to the Accident Fund violated the Act. In addition, we dismiss the appeal in Docket No. 295750 as moot.

BACKGROUND FACTS

As our Supreme Court has explained:

As a statutorily created entity, both the extent of the power of the commissioner of the OFIR (the OFIR Commissioner) to regulate BCBSM and the extent of BCBSM's permissible activities are governed by statute, and specifically, by the Act. Id. at 424, 270 N.W.2d 845; MCL 550.1101 et seq.

In 1993, the Legislature amended the Act to permit BCBSM to purchase the state accident fund, a for-profit workers' compensation insurer. MCL 550.1207(1)(x). Thereafter, BCBSM formed the Accident Fund as a wholly owned, for-profit Michigan stock insurance subsidiary, and, in December 1994, the Accident Fund purchased the assets and acquired the liabilities of the state accident fund.

At issue here are a series of financial transactions undertaken by the Accident Fund to acquire three foreign insurance companies, as well as a $125 million contribution to the Accident Fund by BCBSM. In December 2005, the Accident Fund acquired 100 percent of the outstanding common shares of workers' compensation insurer United Wisconsin Insurance Company (UWI). On August 4, 2007, BCBSM's board of directors approved the Accident Fund's forthcoming acquisition of CWI Holdings, Inc. (CWI), a Delaware insurance holding company that itself owns 100 percent of the shares of CompWest Insurance Company, a California property and casualty insurance company that provides workers' compensation insurance primarily in California, and it also approved a capital contribution from BCBSM to the Accident Fund "in an amount sufficient to insure [sic] the collective workers' compensation companies are able to maintain an `A' insurance rating." Then, on August 31, 2007, the Accident Fund acquired 100 percent of the outstanding common shares of Third Coast Insurance Company (Third Coast), an inactive property and casualty insurance company located in Illinois. Finally, in November 2007, BCBSM transferred $125 million to the Accident Fund, as a capital contribution with no repayment obligation pursuant to the August 4, 2007, authorization of its board of directors, and the Accident Fund acquired 100 percent of the outstanding shares of CWI.

On July 2, 2008, plaintiff filed a three-count complaint against BCBSM, challenging the permissibility of the Accident Fund's acquisition of UWI, CWI, and Third Coast, as well as of BCBSM's November 2007 $125 million contribution to the Accident Fund. Only counts I and II are at issue before this Court.1 In count I, plaintiff alleged that the Accident Fund's acquisition of the three foreign insurers violated MCL 550.1207(1)(o), which provides, as follows:

Plaintiff alleged that the Accident Fund's acquisition of UWI, CWI, and Third Coast violated the general prohibition, in the first sentence of subdivision (o) of § 207(1), against the acquisition of any "domestic, foreign, or alien insurers...." While the second sentence of subdivision (o) provides an exception to that prohibition in certain situations, plaintiff further argued that the Accident Fund's acquisitions at issue here did not fall within the exception language.2 Plaintiff further alleged, in count II of plaintiffs initial complaint, that BCBSM's November 2007 contribution of $125 million to the Accident Fund violated the restriction set forth in MCL 550.1207(1)(x)(vi), which prevents BCBSM from using its funds to "operate or subsidize in any way" the Accident Fund.3

BCBSM moved in the trial court for summary disposition of the complaint pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), asserting that MCL 550.1207(1)(o) applies only to BCBSM, because it is "a health care corporation" under the Act, and that the statute does not apply to the Accident Fund, because it is not such a health-care corporation.4 Further, BCBSM argued that it did not violate the Act by virtue of its capital contribution to the Accident Fund. Alternatively, BCBSM moved in the trial court to dismiss count II and refer it to the OFIR Commissioner for resolution pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

The trial court initially denied BCBSM's motion regarding count I. On count II, the trial court concluded that plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to state a claim that BCBSM violated the statute by making the $125 million contribution to the Accident Fund at the time and in the manner that it did so, but the trial court dismissed that count without prejudice and referred it to the OFIR Commissioner under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. BCBSM moved for reconsideration of the trial court's denial of its motion for summary disposition of count I of the complaint, and the trial court granted that motion and, on reconsideration, dismissed count I of plaintiffs complaint. On January 13, 2009, the trial court entered an order concluding that the restrictions set forth in MCL 550.1207(1)(o) do not directly apply to transactions undertaken by the Accident Fund, nor do they apply to actions taken by BCBSM indirectly by and through the Accident Fund, its subsidiary.

After plaintiffs appeal of the trial court's January 13, 2009, order was filed in this Court, the OFIR Commissioner considered the issues raised by count II of the complaint and entered his order, concluding that "BCBSM did not violate Section 207(1)(x)(vi) in its November 2007 capital contribution to the Accident Fund." Plaintiff then filed a second complaint in the circuit court against BCBSM and a petition to review the OFIR Commissioner's order, naming the OFIR and the OFIR Commissioner as respondents, asking the court to declare that the OFIR Commissioner's resolution of the challenge to BCBSM's capital contribution was contrary to the court's prior interpretation of the statute, that it was "contrary to [the scope of the trial court's] referral [to the OFIR Commissioner] for factual determinations," that it was not authorized by law and was contrary to the plain language of MCL 550.1207(1)(x)(vi), and that it was not supported by any record or competent evidence. Respondents moved for summary disposition, asserting that the claim that BCBSM's capital contribution violated MCL 550.1207(1)(x)(vi) was within the primary jurisdiction of the OFIR, that the OFIR Commissioner had adjudicated that claim in BCBSM's favor, and that plaintiffs petition that the trial court review the OFIR Commissioner's decision was untimely. BCBSM also moved for dismissal pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4), asserting that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to seek judicial review of the OFIR Commissioner's decision within 21 days of the entering of that order. The trial court granted both BCBSM's motion for summary disposition and respondents' motion to dismiss, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case as an original action and that the petition for review of the OFIR Commissioner's decision was not timely filed.

THE ACCIDENT FUND'S ACQUISITION OF THE INSURERS

Plaintiff first argues, in Docket No. 290167, that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition of count I of plaintiffs initial complaint because, contrary to the trial court's conclusion, MCL 550.1207(1)(o) prohibited the Accident Fund's acquisition of UWI, CWI, and Third Coast. We disagree.

As a preliminary matter, BCBSM asserts that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs appeal as of right in Docket No. 290167 of the trial court's January 13, 2009, order, because the trial court's October 6, 2008, order granting in part and denying in part BCBSM's motion for summary disposition dismissed count II of plaintiffs complaint without prejudice and referred that count to the OFIR Commissioner. BCBSM argues that a dismissal without prejudice is not a final order under MCR 7.203(A), and therefore, that the trial court's disposition of count II in that manner "renders the collective orders from which this appeal is taken non-final, and deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of right." We disagree.

The trial court's dismissal of count II of the complaint in the manner and under the circumstances present here, constituted a final "disposition" of that claim for purposes of MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i). Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC v. Plante & Moran, PLLC, 276 Mich.App. 146, 742 N.W.2d 409 (2007). In Rooyakker, this Court rejected the argument that an order of summary disposition that referred certain claims to arbitration did not constitute a final order, concluding that the order of summary disposition in that case was a final order "because there was nothing left for the trial court to decide and it did not state that it was retaining jurisdiction...." Id. at 148 n. 1, 742 N.W.2d 409. Likewise, in the present case, there was nothing left for the trial court to decide regarding count II after its decision to refer the claim to the OFIR Commissioner, and the trial court did not state in the October 6, 2008, order dismissing that count without prejudice that it was retaining jurisdiction of that count. Instead, the trial court specifically indicated in its January 13, 2009, order granting summary disposition with regard to count I upon reconsideration that "[t]his decision resolved the last pending claim and closes this case." Thus, plainly, the trial court believed that there was nothing left for it to resolve and that it had "disposed" of all plaintiffs claims by its summary disposition of count I. Therefore, here as in Rooyakker, there was nothing left for the trial court to decide, and all claims were finally "disposed" of within the meaning of MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i).

Turning to the substantive issue presented, we first observe that this Court reviews de novo both a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition and questions of statutory interpretation. City of Taylor v. Detroit Edison Co., 475 Mich. 109, 115, 715 N.W.2d 28 (2006); Dressel v. Ameribank, 468 Mich. 557, 561, 664 N.W.2d 151 (2003). As this Court explained in Smith v. Stolberg, 231 Mich.App. 256, 258, 586 N.W.2d 103 (1998):

The trial court determined that plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted pursuant to MCL 550.1207(1)(o), because that section is inapplicable to the Accident Fund's acquisition, ownership, and operation of UWI, CWI, and Third Coast. As previously noted, MCL 550.1207(1)(o) provides, in pertinent part:

This Court's goal when interpreting a statute is to discern and give effect to the Legislature's intent. Neal v. Wilkes, 470 Mich. 661, 665, 685 N.W.2d 648 (2004). The intent of the Legislature is most reliably shown through the words used in the statute. Id. If the language in the statute is unambiguous, the Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written. Turner v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 448 Mich. 22, 27, 528 N.W.2d 681 (1995). In such cases, judicial construction is neither required nor permitted. Nastal v. Henderson & Assoc. Investigations, Inc., 471 Mich. 712, 720, 691 N.W.2d 1 (2005), citing Sun Valley Foods Co. v. Ward, 460 Mich. 230, 236, 596 N.W.2d 119 (1999). Effect should be given to every phrase, clause, and word in the statute, and this Court will avoid a construction that would render any part of a statute surplusage or nugatory. Herman V. Berrien Co., 481 Mich. 352, 366, 750 N.W.2d 570 (2008). "The statutory language must be read and understood in its grammatical context, unless it is clear that something different was intended." Sun Valley Foods Co. v. Ward, 460 Mich. 230, 237, 596 N.W.2d 119 (1999). And, this Court "must consider both the plain meaning of the critical words or phrases as well as their placement and purpose in the statutory scheme." People v. Williams, 268 Mich.App. 416, 425, 707 N.W.2d 624 (2005). This Court may "`consult dictionary definitions of terms that are not defined in a statute.'" Woodard V. Custer, 476 Mich. 545, 561, 719 N.W.2d 842 (2006), quoting People v. Perkins, 473 Mich. 626, 639, 703 N.W.2d 448 (2005). However, "technical words and phrases, and such as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning." MCL 8.3a; Woodard, 476 Mich, at 561, 719 N.W.2d 842.

There is no dispute that BCBSM, as a "health care corporation," was plainly prohibited by MCL 550.1207(1)(o) from directly acquiring UWI, CWI, and Third Coast. And, there is no allegation that it did so. The question presented is whether MCL 550.1207(1)(o) has any application to the acquisition of these insurers by BCBSM's wholly owned subsidiary, the Accident Fund. We agree with the trial court's conclusion that it does not.

By its plain language, MCL 550.1207(1) sets forth permissible activities by a "health care corporation," that is, a "nonprofit hospital service corporation, medical care corporation, or a consolidated hospital service and medical care corporation incorporated or reincorporated under" the Act. MCL 550.1105(2); MCL 550.1207(1). This includes BCBSM; it does not include the Accident Fund. Therefore, MCL 550.1207(1)(o) has no direct application to the Accident Fund's business activities. It applies here, then, only if it prevents BCBSM from activity undertaken by its wholly owned subsidiary. However, nothing in MCL 550.1207(1)(o) expressly prohibits any particular activity undertaken by a health-care corporation's subsidiary. The restrictions set forth in MCL 550.1207(1)(o) plainly apply only to a "health care corporation"; they do not mention or refer to such a corporation's affiliates or subsidiaries.

Plaintiff argues that the prohibition against the Accident Fund's acquisition of UWI, CWI, and Third Coast arises from the statute's prohibition against BCBSM "otherwise" acquiring, owning, or holding voting shares or voting securities or interests issued by a domestic, foreign, or alien insurer. That is, plaintiff argues that the acquisition of UWI, CWI, and Third Coast by the Accident Fund constituted BCBSM "otherwise" acquiring those insurers within the meaning of MCL 550.1207(1)(o). Plaintiff points to language in MCL 550.1207(1)(o)(iii) and (iv), prohibiting a health-care corporation from direct or indirect control of certain types of insurers, as supporting plaintiffs assertion. Again, however, we find dispositive the fact that there is simply nothing in the plain language of the statute to support a conclusion that MCL 550.1207(1)(o) prohibits activities undertaken by the Accident Fund. The entirety of MCL 550.1207(1)(o) applies only to "health care corporations," and it permits BCBSM to acquire certain types of foreign insurers under certain circumstances. Thus, MCL 550.1207(1)(o) only applies when BCBSM undertakes a financial transaction meeting certain criteria. However, the transactions about which plaintiff complains were not undertaken by BCBSM; they were undertaken by the Accident Fund, to which the restrictions of MCL 550.1207(1)(o) are inapplicable. With respect to plaintiffs reliance on the "otherwise" language of the statute, BCBSM did not itself "invest [in] ... purchase, take, receive, subscribe for, ... acquire, own, hold, vote, [or] employ" any interest whatsoever in the three insurance companies purchased by the Accident Fund in any manner whatsoever. Thus, it did not itself "otherwise" engage in any such activity in violation of the statute.

Of further note in analyzing plaintiffs argument that MCL 550.1207(1)(o)(iii) and (iv) prohibit BCBSM from indirectly controlling UWI, CWI, and Third Coast by virtue of the acquisition of those companies by the Accident Fund, is the 2003 amendment of this section. Before that amendment, MCL 550.1207(1)(o) read as follows:

Effective July 23, 2003, however, subparagraph (iii) was rewritten, and a new subparagraph (iv) was added. As quoted earlier in this opinion, the amended subparagraph (iii) and the new subparagraph (iv) read as follows:

Thus, the prohibition against "a health care corporation ... indirectly engag[ing] in any investment activity that it may not engage in directly" was removed by the Legislature. It was replaced with a prohibition against an investment by a health-care corporation that would result in the corporation owning 10 percent or more of the voting securities of a particular insurer or "otherwise result[ing] in the health care corporation having [the prohibited level of] control of that insurer. As amended, then, MCL 550.1207(1)(o)(iii) is violated only when the health-care corporation undertakes a financial transaction that results in it having control of the acquired insurer. Plainly, BCBSM did not itself acquire any interest in or control of the three insurers at issue. Thus, the conditions attendant to any such acquisition, set forth in subparagraphs (i)-(iv), were not implicated.

Further, as the trial court noted, MCL 550.1207(1)(x) provides, in relevant part, that BCBSM may

Thus, the Act specifically authorizes the Accident Fund to indirectly transact certain types of insurance, including workers' compensation insurance, and to indirectly provide noninsurance products and services as permitted by law. We concur with the trial court's reasoning that reading MCL 550.1207(1)(o) as implicitly preventing the acquisition of workers' compensation insurers by the Accident Fund would be contrary to the language of MCL 550.1207(1)(x)(i), which explicitly permits such acquisitions.5

THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred by dismissing count II of plaintiffs initial complaint and by referring the count to the OFIR Commissioner for a determination of whether BCBSM had violated the Act. We agree. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction permitted the trial court to refer the count to the OFIR Commissioner for an advisory opinion, but the trial court erred by failing to retain jurisdiction of the count and by failing to make a determination de novo of the statutory-interpretation issue.

In a convoluted argument, BCBSM argues that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction allows an administrative agency to issue a binding interpretation of a statute. This argument miscomprehends the doctrine. The applicability of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction presents a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo. Psychosocial Serv. Assoc., P.C. v. State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 279 Mich.App. 334, 336, 761 N.W.2d 716 (2008); Mich. Basic Prop. Ins. Ass'n v. Detroit Edison Co., 240 Mich.App. 524, 528, 618 N.W.2d 32 (2000). "The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is grounded in the principle of separation of powers.... [And it] is concerned with promoting proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies charged with particular regulatory duties." Travelers Ins. Co. v. Detroit Edison Co., 465 Mich. 185, 196-197, 631 N.W.2d 733 (2001) (quotation marks and citations omitted). As our Supreme Court explained in Rinaldo's Constr. Corp. v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co., 454 Mich. 65, 70-72, 559 N.W.2d 647 (1997):

As our Supreme Court has observed in Travelers Ins. Co., the doctrine of primary jurisdiction

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is applicable where the issues presented are of a type that an administrative agency possesses superior knowledge and expertise over the courts and that involve a regulatory area unfamiliar to the courts. Consequently, referral to an agency is appropriate for "`preliminary resort for ascertaining and interpreting the circumstances underlying legal issues,'" to thereafter be decided by the courts. Id. at 199, 631 N.W.2d 733 (emphasis added; citation omitted).

As a threshold issue, before invoking the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, a court must find that the administrative agency to which referral is sought has concurrent original jurisdiction over the issues raised. Here, the trial court did not specifically determine that the OFIR had concurrent original jurisdiction over the question whether the $125 million capital contribution was an impermissible subsidy under MCL 550.1207(1)(x). Nonetheless, the implication of the trial court's referral is necessarily that the OFIR has such jurisdiction.

BCBSM acknowledges that "[r]esolution of the issues raised in Count II was and is dependent upon the proper construction of MCL 550.1207(1)(x)(vi)" and notes that in In re Complaint of Rovas Against SBC Mick, 482 Mich. 90, 103, 754 N.W.2d 259 (2008), our Supreme Court held that courts should give "`respectful consideration'" to the construction of a statute by an administrative agency charged with administering the statute and should not overturn the agency's interpretation without `"cogent reasons.'" BCBSM then concludes that, "[g]iven the Commissioner's extensive experience in regulating the insurance and health care industries, and financial transactions between affiliated entities, the trial court properly gave to the Commissioner the initial opportunity to interpret Section 207, and this Court, respectfully, should not disturb that decision." However, BCBSM overstates the degree of consideration that is appropriately afforded to the OFIR Commissioner's determination on a question of statutory interpretation.

At issue in In re Complaint of Rovas, was whether SBC Michigan (SBC) violated § 502(1)(a) of the Michigan Telecommunications Act, MCL 484.2502(1)(a), by sending customers an erroneous bill. The customers filed a complaint with the Public Service Commission (PSC), which agreed with the customers that the erroneous bill constituted a violation. This Court had reluctantly affirmed, despite "reservations," concluding that the agency's interpretation of the statute was "plausible." In re Complaint of Rovas, 482 Mich, at 93-94, 754 N.W.2d 259. Our Supreme Court reversed. It first noted:

With these principles in mind, the Court explained the standard of review afforded by the courts to an agency's interpretation of a statute as follows:

In sum, then, contrary to BCBSM's assertion, "`[r]espectful consideration' is not equivalent to any normative understanding of `deference' as the latter term is commonly used in appellate decisions," and "`the agency's interpretation is not binding on this Court, and cannot be used to overcome the statute's plain meaning.'" Id. at 105, 108, 754 N.W.2d 259 (citation omitted). It is the courts, not the OFIR, that have the ultimate authority over the statutory interpretation of the Act, and any statutory interpretation rendered by the OFIR Commissioner in this case is not binding on the court.

Therefore, the trial court erred when it failed to make an independent interpretation of the statute at issue in count II. Count II is remanded to the trial court; we direct the trial court to make an independent, de novo interpretation of the statute. The court must allow the parties an opportunity to present evidence and to fully brief the issue. The court may also invite and allow any appropriate entities to file amicus briefs.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Given our reversal with regard to count II, plaintiffs appeal of the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs second complaint, at issue in Docket No. 295750, is rendered moot. We do not retain jurisdiction. Neither party having prevailed in full, there shall be no taxable costs.

Opinion by BANDSTRA, J.

BANDSTRA, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur with most of the majority opinion but disagree with its conclusion that the trial court should decide on remand a question that was raised on appeal, whether the $125 million capital contribution by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) to the Accident Fund Insurance Company of America (the Accident Fund) violated MCL 550.1207(1)(x). The majority directed a remand on this issue to allow the parties an opportunity to present evidence and fully brief it. However, the issue has been fully briefed, and no set of facts would justify the capital contribution under the clear language of the statute.

MCL 550.1207(1)(x) provides, in relevant part:

As the majority has noted, this Court's goal when interpreting a statute is to discern and give effect to the Legislature's intent. Neal v. Wilkes, 470 Mich. 661, 665, 685 N.W.2d 648 (2004). The intent of the Legislature is most reliably shown through the words used in the statute. Id. If the language in the statute is unambiguous, the Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written. Turner v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 448 Mich. 22, 27, 528 N.W.2d 681 (1995). Effect should be given to every phrase, clause, and word in the statute, and this Court will avoid a construction that would render any part of a statute surplusage or nugatory. Herman v. Berrien Co., 481 Mich. 352, 366, 750 N.W.2d 570 (2008). "The statutory language must be read and understood in its grammatical context, unless it is clear that something different was intended." Sun Valley Foods Co. v. Ward, 460 Mich. 230, 237, 596 N.W.2d 119 (1999). And, this Court "must consider both the plain meaning of the critical words or phrases as well as their placement and purpose in the statutory scheme." People v. Williams, 268 Mich.App. 416, 425, 707 N.W.2d 624 (2005). This Court may "`consult dictionary definitions of terms that are not defined in a statute.'" Woodard V. Custer, 476 Mich. 545, 561, 719 N.W.2d 842 (2006), quoting People v. Perkins, 473 Mich. 626, 639, 703 N.W.2d 448 (2005). However, "technical words and phrases, and such as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning." MCL 8.3a; Woodard, 476 Mich, at 561, 719 N.W.2d 842.

By its plain language, MCL 550.1207(1)(x)(vi) prohibits BCBSM funds from being used to "operate or subsidize in any way" the Accident Fund, "including the use of such funds to subsidize contracts for goods and services." Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1992), defines "any" as "one, a, an or some," or as "every, [or] all"; it defines "way" as "manner, mode, or fashion"; it defines "operate" as "to work, perform or function" or "to manage or use"; it defines "subsidize" as "to furnish or aid with a subsidy" and it defines "subsidy" as "any grant or contribution of money." Applying these definitions to § 207(1)(X)(vi) then, BCBSM is prohibited from using its funds to aid the Accident Fund with a grant or contribution of money, in any manner or fashion. Certainly, the $125 million nonrepayable contribution of BCBSM funds to the Accident Fund meets this definition.

BCBSM argues, and the commissioner of the Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation (OFIR) (the OFIR Commissioner) agreed, that the term "subsidize" as used in the statute refers only to "subsidization," an insurance industry term with a particular, technical meaning limited to rate subsidization and that it is only this particular activity that the Legislature intended to prohibit. See MCL 8.3a. However, even assuming "subsidization" might be interpreted that way, the statute does not merely prohibit "subsidization" and the restrictive connotation that BCBSM would have us impose is belied by the Legislature's use of the much broader "operate or subsidize in any way" phrase, as just explained.

Further, § 207(1)(X)(vi) states that BCBSM may not subsidize the Accident Fund by using BCBSM funds "to subsidize contracts for goods and services." Again, this is a broad phrase and there is no limiting language suggesting that the contracts that BCBSM cannot subsidize are only those contracts that would affect the Accident Fund's rates. Again, therefore, this broad statutory language is inconsistent with the reading of the statute that BCBSM urges on us; to accept BCBSM's argument would improperly render the broad statutory provision regarding "contracts for goods and services" surplusage or nugatory. Herman, 481 Mich, at 366, 750 N.W.2d 570.

In sum, reading the prohibition against the use of BCBSM funds to subsidize in any way the Accident Fund, "in its grammatical context," Sun Valley Foods, 460 Mich, at 237, 596 N.W.2d 119, and considering "both the plain meaning of the critical words or phrases as well as their placement and purpose in the statutory scheme," Williams, 268 Mich.App. at 425, 707 N.W.2d 624, as this Court is required to do, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the plain language of MCL 550.1207(1)(x)(vi) is that BCBSM is prevented from contributing its funds to the Accident Fund for any purpose, not merely for the purpose of subsidizing the Accident Fund's insurance rates.1

BCBSM further argues that the capital contribution constitutes a permissible "other financial transaction" within the meaning of § 207(1)(x)(vi). This argument also lacks merit. "Under the statutory construction doctrine known as ejusdem generis, where a general term follows a series of specific terms, the general term is interpreted 'to include only things of the same kind, class, character, or nature as those specifically enumerated.'" Neal, 470 Mich. at 669, 685 N.W.2d 648, quoting Huggett v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 464 Mich. 711, 718-719, 629 N.W.2d 915 (2001). Therefore, the language "other financial transactions" must be interpreted to include only those transactions of the same kind, class, character, or nature as "joint undertakings" to allow BCBSM and the Accident Fund to take advantage of economies of scale, or "arm's-length loans...." MCL 550.1207(1)(x)(vi). Thus, the "other financial transactions" permitted by the statute are of the type that have direct, immediate, and concrete mutual economic/financial benefit. A transfer of $125 million from BCBSM to the Accident Fund, without any repayment obligation or direct benefit to BCBSM, regardless of the purpose, does not meet this criteria.

For these reasons, I would conclude, without remanding the issue, that BCBSM's $125 million contribution to the Accident Fund was impermissible under the plain language of MCL 550.1207(1)(x).