Court Opinion

ID: 9664206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:07:11.09375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:03.233904
License: Public Domain

V. J. Brennan, P. J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the interpretation which the majority places on the Michigan uninsured motorist statute. That statute (MOLA 500.3010; MSA 24.13010) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
“No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered *457by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto in limits for bodily injury or death set forth in section 504 of Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949, as amended, being section 257-.504 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, * * * for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles, including owners or operators insured by an insolvent insurer, because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom, unless the named insured rejects such coverage in writing as provided herein.”
I cannot quarrel with my brethren’s statement that the majority of jurisdictions which have considered this issue have reached the same conclusion they reach.1 However, I feel that both my brethren and the jurisdictions they rely on have misinterpreted the statutory language.
The uninsured motorist statute requires each policy of insurance to provide certain minimum coverage in certain situations. The majority in this case have read the statute to require the uninsured motorist provision of each policy to provide the mandated coverage. While the statute, does not permit an insurer to reduce his maximum liability beneath the statutory minimum (see Blakeslee v Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Michigan, 32 Mich App 115 [1971]; and Collins v Motorists Mutual Insurance Co, 36 Mich App 424 [1971]), the statute in no way prevents the insurer from limiting his maximum liability to the statutory minimum.
*458The argument that the insured has paid premiums for both uninsured motorist coverage and medical coverage and should therefore be entitled to receive both is fallacious. This argument assumes that the insurer did not take the clause providing setoff of medical payments against uninsured motorist coverage into consideration when computing its premium. There is no evidence in this case to support the proposition that this setoff was not taken into account in determining the required premium. I would therefore affirm.

 See Anno, 24 ALR3d 1353.