Court Opinion

ID: 9670418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:20:11.787175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:04.324528
License: Public Domain

M. S. Coleman, J.
(dissent). My objection is twofold.
1. The solution is fundamentally unfair and raises constitutional questions. In a three-party contest, two can agree to any kind of settlement less than the policy limits of the insurance company and bind the third party to pay the difference.
2. The plain words of the statute seek to preclude just such inequity:
MCLA 257.1122(2); MSA 9.2822(2) is clear:
"No payment shall be made out of the fund in respect to a claim * * * for damages * * * of any amount paid or payable by an insurer by reason of the existence of a policy of insurance * * * .” (Emphasis added.)
I agree with the arguments set forth by the Attorney General for the Uninsured Motorist Fund condensed in the majority opinion. In short, the Fund is the fund of last resort. Its liability is *359secondary.1 Plaintiffs’ insurance carrier is primarily responsible and its liability must be exhausted before recourse to the Fund absent participation by said Fund.
I would affirm.
Swainson and Lindemer, JJ., took no part in the decision of this case.

See Blakeslee v Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co of Michigan, 388 Mich 464; 201 NW2d 786 (1972).