Case Name: BOETTNER v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1971-06-24
Citations: 34 Mich. App. 510
Docket Number: Docket No. 10263
Parties: BOETTNER v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Judges: Before: Lesinski, C. J., and V. J. Brennan and Danhof, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 34
Pages: 510–519

Head Matter:
BOETTNER v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Opinion op the Court
1. Insurance — Automobiles — Uninsured Motorist Coverage — Statutes — Proration.
Every automobile insurance policy, by statute, must provide uninsured motorist coverage of at least $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident; to allow insurers a proration of their liability when damages exceed the sum of the limits of the multiple policies in force in any one accident would clearly violate the terms of the statute (MCLA § 500.3010).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1-4] 7 Am Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance § 135 et seq.
[2] Uninsured motorist insurance: validity and construction of “other insurance” provisions. 28 ALR3d 551.
2. Insurance — Automobiles — Uninsured Motorist Coverage — Multiple Policies — Statutes.
Plaintiff-administratrix is entitled to recover under two automobile insurance policies on two automobiles where decedents purchased and paid for uninsured motorist coverage in each policy, even though only one of their automobiles was involved in a fatal accident and both policies contained “other insurance” exclusionary clauses; it would be unconscionable for an insurer to collect a premium for a coverage which it is required by statute to provide and then avoid payment of a loss because of language of limitation which it has devised (MOLA § 500.3010).
Dissent by Danhof, J.
3. Insurance — 'Automobiles — Uninsured Motorist Coverage — Multiple Policies.
Plaintiff-administratrix is not entitled to recover under two automobile insurance policies on two automobiles owned by a decedent where only one of the insured vehicles was involved in a fatal accident with an uninsured motorist and the policy on the other car excluded coverage when injury occurred while driving in an owned automobile which was not insured under that policy.
4. Insurance — Automobiles — Uninsured Motorist Coverage — Multiple Policies — Statutes.
The statute requiring every automobile insurance policy to contain uninsured motorist coverage unless the insured rejects such coverage in writing does not invalidate exclusionary causes excluding coverage where injury occurs in an owned automobile which is not insured (MCLA § 500.3010).
Appeal from Wayne, Thomas J. Foley, J. Submitted Division 1 April 6,1971, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 10263.)
Decided June 24, 1971.
Leave to appeal granted October 15, 1971. 386 Mich 759.
Complaint by Beverly Boettner, administratrix of the estates of Emza I. Prochaska and Donald R. Procbaska, both deceased, against State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, for a declaratory judgment determining defendant’s liability for uninsured motorist coverage. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Garan, Lucow, Miller, Lehman, Seward & Cooper, for plaintiff.
Eggenberger, Eggenberger, McKinney d? Webber, for defendant.
Before: Lesinski, C. J., and V. J. Brennan and Danhof, JJ.

Opinion:
Lesinski, C. J.
We concur with the opinion of Judge Danhof insofar as it holds the so-called "other insurance" clause invalid in automobile insurance policies issued after the enactment of MCLA § 500.3010 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 24.13010).
The holding in Blakeslee v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (1971), 32 Mich App 115, is based upon the statutory command that every automobile insurance policy provide uninsured motorist coverage of at least $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident. To allow insurers a proration of their liability when damages exceed the sum of the limits of the multiple policies in force in any one accident would clearly violate the terms of the statute.
It is our view that the "exclusionary" clause called into question in this case is a clearer violation of the statutory command. In this regard the relevant portion of MCLA § 500.3010 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 24.13010) provides that:
"No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be issued # unless coverage is provided therein for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from [uninsuredmotorists.]" (Emphasis supplied.)
Under this statute, an automobile insurance policy must provide coverage for the insured when he is entitled to recovery from uninsured motorists (unless such coverage is waived in writing). A person is entitled to recovery from an uninsured motorist irrespective of whether he is a passenger in another car, or the driver of his insured car.
In this case we do have a double premium situation. Plaintiff's decedents purchased two insurance policies and paid for uninsured motorist coverage twice. Judge Danhoe's opinion concedes that the statute commands that uninsured motorist coverage be included in any policy with respect to any motor vehicle and that such coverage is not. limited to an injury suffered while occupying that motor vehicle. It would be unconscionable that insurers collect a premium for a coverage which they are required by statute to provide, and then avoid payment of a loss because of language of limitation devised by themselves.
Eeversed and remanded. No costs, a public question being involved.
V. J. Brennan, J., concurred.