Court Opinion

ID: 9524044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:49:30.255548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:46.407923
License: Public Domain

O’Connell, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part'). I agree with the majority’s conclusion with respect to the policy issued by Zurich-American Insurance Group, but would also consider whether coverage was afforded under the policy issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. In accordance with the recent opinion of this Court in Zurich-American Ins Co v Amerisure Ins Co, 215 Mich App 526; 547 NW2d 52 (1996), I would find coverage under both policies.
The provision of the Zurich-American policy that excludes coverage “[w]hile the automobile is being used in the business of any person or organization to whom the automobile is rented” suffers from a latent ambiguity under the facts of this case. I am persuaded that plaintiff was, in fact, effecting the business of B & W Cartage Company by returning the tractor to the terminal where he could check for work-related messages. See St Paul Fire & Marine Ins Co v Frankart, 69 Ill 2d 209; 13 Ill Dec 31; 370 NE2d 1058 (1977). However, I agree with the majority that the particular facts of this case, such as the fact *489that plaintiff was under no directive to return to the terminal, could reasonably lead to the conclusion that the tractor was not being used “in the business of” B & W at the time the accident occurred. Because exclusionary clauses are strictly construed, Raska v Farm Bureau Mutual Ins Co of Michigan, 412 Mich 355, 361-362; 314 NW2d 440 (1982), against the drafting insurer, Clevenger v Allstate Ins Co, 443 Mich 646, 654; 505 NW2d 553 (1993), I agree that the ambiguous exclusion must be read narrowly in favor of the insured. Accordingly, I would find coverage under the Zurich-American policy.
However, I would also find coverage under the Liberty Mutual policy for the reasons set forth in Zurich-American Ins Co v Amerisure, supra. That decision, resting upon similar facts, dealt with identical provisions of insurance policies that were identical to those presently being considered, and concluded that coverage existed under both policies. The majority has declined to reach this issue because plaintiffs cross appeal is phrased in the alternative: if this Court finds no coverage under the Zurich-American policy, then this Court should consider whether coverage exists under the Liberty Mutual policy. However, the majority overlooks the fact that Zurich-American is the appellant and both plaintiff and Liberty Mutual are appellees.1 Zurich-American raises this issue in its brief on appeal, and the issue is, therefore, properly before this Court. Because Zurich-American Ins Co v Amerisure, supra, provides that in situations such as the present one cover*490age exists under both policies, I would also find coverage to exist under both policies.
I would affirm the order granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiff with respect to the policy issued by Zurich-American and would reverse the order granting summary disposition in favor of Liberty Mutual with respect to the policy issued by Liberty Mutual.

 While it is trae that plaintiff, in his cross appeal, names Liberty Mutual as a cross appellee but does not name Zurich-American as a cross appellee, plaintiff’s cross appeal is distinct from Zurich-American’s appeal.