Court Opinion

ID: 9591910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:08:46.301775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:12.868446
License: Public Domain

T. E. Brennan, J.
(dissenting). I dissent.
The statute is clear. It requires notice of intent to claim against the Fund. That notice must be on a form prescribed by the Secretary of State.
The specific statutory requirement of notice on a form prescribed by the Secretary precludes the giving of the notice in any other form. Indirect, implied or so-called "actual” notice does not fulfill the statutory requirement.
The majority ascribe to the Legislature the purpose of requiring notice in order to permit timely investigation.
Nothing in the statute limits the notice requirement to the narrow purpose of investigation. Other valid reasons for the notice requirement might well have motivated at least some of the legislative "ayes”.
The need for some foreknowledge of pending *48claims for the purpose of creating reserves and anticipating future demands upon the Fund is one.
The desire to put the plaintiff to an early option is another. After all, the mere lack of liability insurance does not necessarily mean that the defendant is uncollectible. An injured party may, for various reasons, choose not to claim against the Fund, even where the defendant is uninsured. The legislative mandate that such decision be made within a year is not unreasonable.
With respect to the Lisee case, the majority conclude that the Secretary had a duty to intervene, despite clear statutory language that, "the secretary shall have the right to intervene * * *
My Brother’s construction of the statute converts the provision for substituted service upon the Secretary of State into an actual service of process upon the Fund, and requires the Secretary to present objections to payment from the Fund in the principal action between the injured person and the uninsured motorist.
The statute provides that objections to payment from the Fund may be made after determination of all proceedings, including appeals, in the principal case. MCLA 257.1107; MSA 9.2807.
In the area of private liability insurance, courts have held that under certain circumstances, the insurance carrier must defend an action against their insured under a reservation of policy defense. The uninsured motorist fund statute does not impose such a duty upon the Secretary.
The cost of defending every suit. against an uninsured motorist, whether or not a claim has been preserved against the Fund, is surely a proper consideration for legislative determination.
*49We have no call to disturb the decision of the coordinate branch of government.
Black, J., concurred with T. E. Brennan, J.