Court Opinion

ID: 9671270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:33:50.724793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:09.144495
License: Public Domain

Lesinski, C. J.
We concur with the opinion of Judge Danhof insofar as it holds the so-called “other insurance” clause invalid in automobile insurance policies issued after the enactment of MCLA § 500.3010 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 24.13010).
The holding in Blakeslee v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (1971), 32 Mich App 115, is based upon the statutory command that every automobile insurance policy provide uninsured motorist coverage of at least $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident. To allow insurers a proration of their liability when damages exceed the sum of the limits of the multiple policies in force in any one accident would clearly violate the terms of the statute.
It is our view that the “exclusionary” clause called into question in this case is a clearer violation of the statutory command. In this regard the relevant portion of MCLA § 500.3010 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 24.13010) provides that:
“No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be * * * *513issued * * # unless coverage is provided therein * * * for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from [uninsuredmotorists.]” (Emphasis supplied.)
Under this statute, an automobile insurance policy must provide coverage for the insured when he is entitled to recovery from uninsured motorists (unless such coverage is waived in writing). A person is entitled to recovery from an uninsured motorist irrespective of whether he is a passenger in another car, or the driver of his insured car.
In this case we do have a double premium situation. Plaintiff’s decedents purchased two insurance policies and paid for uninsured motorist coverage twice. Judge Danhoe’s opinion concedes that the statute commands that uninsured motorist coverage be included in any policy with respect to any motor vehicle and that such coverage is not. limited to an injury suffered while occupying that motor vehicle. It would be unconscionable that insurers collect a premium for a coverage which they are required by statute to provide, and then avoid payment of a loss because of language of limitation devised by themselves.
Eeversed and remanded. No costs, a public question being involved.
V. J. Brennan, J., concurred.