Court Opinion

ID: 9706820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:52:18.832462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:35.190911
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
I concur in the majority’s analysis and result. I write separately to observe that to apply the theory of "concurrent causation” to require Vanguard to defend or indemnify despite the unambiguous and clearly applicable automobile exclusion would be to read the exclusion out of the policy. A clear and unambiguous clause is valid as long as it does not contravene public policy. Raska v Farm Bureau Mutual Ins Co, 412 Mich 355, 361-362; 314 NW2d 440 (1982). While there may be circumstances that would require that a policy exclusion not be recognized, this case does not present such circumstances.
*476Cavan agh, C.J., concurred with Boyle, J.