Opinion ID: 1658184
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Policyholder Protected Against Confusing Statements

Text: Rule 6 originates from the DeLand case, which held that the insurance policy may not prominently make a promise of coverage and then less prominently attempt to contradict that promise in whole or in part in the body of the policy. DeLand found that doing so was not only ambiguous but deceptive. In DeLand there was a prominent notice indicating a life insurance policy was noncancellable, but, in a later section entitled Additional Provisions, there was included a sentence stating that the acceptance of renewal premiums was optional. This Court held the later clause invalid because it rendered the policy deceptive. In the instant policies there is a promise of coverage in case of injury caused by an insured while driving an owned or nonowned automobile. In plain English this seems to cover everything. Later on in the definitions section in a complex sentence there is a limitation on the meaning of nonowned which limits the coverage afforded. In short, the DeLand Rule 6 seems to apply to the owned-automobile exclusion and render it invalid because it is deceptive and confusing. SUBCONCLUSION The owned-automobile exclusion appears to implicate all of the above six rules of construction gleaned from Michigan case law. The combined effect of these rules clearly invalidates the instant owned-automobile exclusions, and several of the individual rules as well would invalidate the instant owned-automobile exclusions.