Court Opinion

ID: 9670599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:23:20.525553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.553340
License: Public Domain

Murphy, J.
This case is before us for a resolution pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1990-6 of a conflict in the decisions of the Court of Appeals. In the previous opinion in this case, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co v Enterprise Leasing Co, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided September 30, 1993 *9(Docket No. 150077), this Court reversed the trial court’s summary disposition in favor of plaintiff on the basis of the prior decision from this Court in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co v Snappy Car Rental, Inc, 196 Mich App 143; 492 NW2d 500 (1992). Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1990-6, we vacated the decision in this case pending resolution by this panel.
The question certified for this panel is as follows:
[WJhether pursuant to MCL 500.3101(1); MSA 24.13101(1) and MCL 257.520(b)(2); MSA 9.2220(b) (2) a car rental company may include in its rental agreement an option allowing the permissive user of a vehicle to provide his or her own primary residual liability insurance, as found in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co v Snappy Car Rental, Inc, 196 Mich App 143; 492 NW2d 500 (1992), lv den 442 Mich 883 (1993); or whether the car rental company must provide primary residual liability insurance for a permissive user pursuant to its policy of insurance, as would have been the holding in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co v Enterprise Leasing Co, unpublished per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided September 30, 1993 (No. 150077), absent Administrative Order 1990-6.
We conclude that State Farm Mutual v Snappy Car Rental, supra, is the appropriate resolution and, accordingly, reverse the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of plaintiff-appellee.
Reversed and remanded.
Doctoroff, C.J., and Holbrook, Jr., Mackenzie, Hood, Gribbs, Sawyer, and Fitzgerald, JJ., concurred.