Court Opinion

ID: 9698863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:01:50.343985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:44.124464
License: Public Domain

D. C. Riley, J.
Following an automobile accident, plaintiff sought recovery under the uninsured motorist provisions of policies which plaintiff and her mother held with defendant. Plaintiff requested arbitration on this matter pursuant to the terms of the policy. The arbitrators concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to recovery. On June 20, 1978, an Ingham County circuit judge entered an order denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. Plaintiff appeals as of right, claiming that the arbitrators exceeded their authority in reaching their decision.
In most instances, an arbitrator’s factual or legal conclusions will not be disturbed by the courts. North American Steel Corp v Siderius, Inc, 75 Mich App 391, 399-400; 254 NW2d 899 (1977), Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v Ayvazian, 62 Mich App 94, 97; 233 NW2d 200 (1975). GCR 1963, 769.9(1), sets out limited exceptions to this rule including instances where the arbitrators have exceeded their authority.
We do not find any exception applicable to the instant case.1 It was plaintiff who submitted the *167issue to arbitration, thus negating any possible claim that the award exceeded the scope of the arbitration agreement. See Smith v Highland Park Board of Education, 83 Mich App 541, 546; 269 NW2d 216 (1978), Nor can it be said that the arbitrators acted with manifest disregard of the law, as the instant award is not in conflict with any existing Michigan law. See, Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v Ayvazian, supra, at 98. Therefore, the arbitration award will not be vacated.
Affirmed. Costs to defendant.
Danhof, C.J., concurred.

 Since we do not believe that the arbitrators exceeded their authority in denying plaintiff recovery, we do not reach the merits of this case as does the dissent. Were we to examine this case de novo, we would likely adopt the majority view, as opposed to the minority view advocated by the dissent, which is that an insufficiently insured motorist may not recover from uninsured motorists’ funds. See Saari v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 72 Mich App 278; 249 NW2d 390 (1976), Gorton v Reliance Ins Co, 77 NJ 563; 391 A2d 1219 (1978), Brake v MFA Mutual Ins Co, 525 SW2d 109 (Mo App, 1975), *167Travelers Ins Co v Bouzer, 39 Cal App 3d 992; 114 Cal Rptr 651 (1974), Simonette v Great American Ins Co, 165 Conn 466; 338 A2d 453 (1973).