Court Opinion

ID: 9670600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:23:20.530135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.554793
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
(dissenting). We agree with the majority’s careful statement of the issue before us, *10but dissent because we would reach a different resolution.
We would hold instead that under MCL 500.3101(1); MSA 24.13101(1) and MCL 257.520(b) (2); MSA 9.2220(b)(2) an owner’s policy of liability insurance is required to provide primary residual liability insurance for any permissive user. The arguments in support of this position were set forth in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co v Enterprise Leasing Co, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided September 30, 1993 (No. 150077) (set forth in full in the appendix to this opinion), and the dissent in Citizen’s Ins Co of America v Federated Mutual Ins Co, 199 Mich App 345, 348; 500 NW2d 773 (1993).
Although we are cognizant of the policy arguments on both sides of this issue, we feel that the merits of these arguments should be addressed by the Legislature rather than this Court.
We would affirm.
Wahls, Griffin, Neff, and Taylor, JJ., concurred.
APPENDIX
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant,
September 30, 1993
No. 150077
Before: Weaver, P.J., and Murphy and Jansen, JJ.
*11Per Curiam.
Ladonna Teasley rented a car from defendant Enterprise Leasing Company to use while her car was being repaired. While driving the rental car, Teasley was involved in an accident. The resulting personal injury claims were settled, and the claims paid by Teasley’s automobile insurer and Enterprise. Now State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company has brought suit against Enterprise to determine who is responsible for the damages. Both State Farm and Enterprise moved for summary disposition, each arguing that the other was the primary insurer responsible for providing residual liability insurance for the accident. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of State Farm. Enterprise now appeals. We reverse and remand.
In the rental agreement Teasley signed, she warranted that she had insurance through State Farm and agreed to provide insurance for the rental vehicle and hold Enterprise harmless.
State Farm’s policy provided residual liability coverage only if there was no other coverage available and excluded coverage if the insured was driving a car owned by a car business if there was other insurance to cover the vehicle. State Farm also argued that Enterprise’s rental agreement was void because it violated certain statutory provisions: MCL 257.520(b)(2); MSA 9.2220(b)(2), MCL 500.3101; MSA 24.13101, MCL 500.3131; MSA 24.13131, and MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135.
I
Enterprise first asserts that the requirements of the Michigan financial responsibility act are not violated by the provision in its rental agreement. Enterprise points out that the renter agreed to provide her own insurance coverage for the vehi*12ele, and Enterprise still assumed financial responsibility for the rental vehicle on an excess basis to the primary personal liability insurance coverage of the renter.
This case involves the requirements of the no-fault act and the financial responsibility law relating to vehicle ownership. Section 3101(1) of the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101(1); MSA 24.13101(1), provides as follows:
The owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state shall maintain security for payment of benefits under personal protection insurance, property protection insurance, and residual liability insurance. Security shall be in effect continuously during the period of registration of the motor vehicle.
Section 520(b)(2) of the financial responsibility portion of the Vehicle Code, MCL 257.520(b)(2); MSA 9.2220(b)(2), states that an owner’s automobile liability insurance policy
[sjhall insure the person named therein and any other person, as insured, using any such motor vehicle or motor vehicles with the express or implied permission of such named insured, against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such motor vehicle.
The question is whether the owner of a vehicle must always be primarily responsible for insuring against liability resulting from vehicle accidents, or whether the owner of a vehicle may contract or agree that the driver of the vehicle will be primarily responsible for liability insurance.
We are bound by Administrative Order No. 1990-6 to follow the recent case of State Farm *13Mutual Automobile Ins Co v Snappy Car Rental, Inc, 196 Mich App 143; 492 NW2d 500 (1992). Snappy held that a person signing a short-term rental agreement for a vehicle can agree that his personal automobile insurance contract will provide primary liability coverage for accidents that occur while he has the rented vehicle and that such an agreement was not void.
We disagree with Snappy and, if not bound to follow it, would hold that an owner’s policy of liability insurance is required to provide primary residual liability insurance for any permissive user. MCL 500.3101(1); MSA 24.13101(1) and MCL 257.520(b)(2); MSA 9.2220(b)(2).
n
The next issue is whether the State Farm policy provides coverage for the accident. State Farm argues that both State Farm and Enterprise are primary insurers with conflicting "excess” or "escape” clauses and, therefore, that each is required to pay a pro-rata share. Enterprise argues that Teasley signed an agreement stating that her personal automobile insurance contract would provide coverage for the rented vehicle.
State Farm’s policy contains an "other insurance” clause,1 which provides that if a temporary substitute car has other vehicle liability coverage on it, State Farm’s coverage is excess. As we have seen, Enterprise’s rental agreement also provides that its coverage is excess.
When there are two competing policies, each *14containing an excess clause, each of which would have provided coverage had the other policy not existed, liability should be prorated according to the policies’ limits. Nat’l Indemnity Co v Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc, 195 Mich App 186; 489 NW2d 175 (1992).
Accordingly, we reverse the court’s order of summary disposition in favor of State Farm. We remand for calculation of the proper pro-rata liability of each party and entry of an order consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Temporary Substitute Car: Non-Owned Car, Trailer.
If a temporary substitute car, a non-owned car or a trailer designed for use with private passenger car or utility vehicle has other similar vehicle liability coverage on it, then these coverages are excess.