Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #252613; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Sawyer and Wilder; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uniform Trade Practices Act
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that although a vehicle was not titled in the policy-holder’s name, the policy was not void because the policy holder had an insurable interest in the vehicle. In this case, plaintiffs Dicks and Stover jointly owned a home. They obtained refinancing and Stover purchased a vehicle with the proceeds and titled the vehicle in his name. Stover then contacted defendant Brown-Pixley Insurance Agency and told the agent to add the vehicle to his policy and delete another vehicle. The agent deleted the other vehicle but mistakenly added the new vehicle to Dicks’ no-fault insurance policy with defendant Secura Insurance Company. Dicks was the only named insured on the Secura policy. Stover was subsequently involved in an automobile accident in which the vehicle was totaled. The trial court awarded plaintiffs $27,620 for the collision damage plus twelve percent interest under MCL 500.2006. The Court of Appeals found that Dicks had an insurable interest in the vehicle obligating Secura to provide coverage because Dicks contributed to the purchase price and was a regular driver. In this regard, the court stated:
“Under Michigan law, the named insured must have an insurable interest to support the existence of a valid automobile liability insurance policy. . . However, ‘[a]n insurable interest does not, of necessity, depend upon the ownership of the property. It may be a special interest entirely disconnected from any title, lien, or possession. If the holder of an interest in property will suffer direct pecuniary loss, by its destruction, he may indemnify himself therefrom by a contract of insurance. The question is not what is his title to the property, but rather, would he be damaged pecuniarily by its loss.’ . . . One may have an insurable interest in a motor vehicle without having title to the vehicle. . . . Applying these principles to this case, we conclude . . . the record demonstrates that Dicks had a pecuniary interest in the Acura. Dicks and Stover had commingled their funds for several years. Shortly before Stover purchased the Acura, Dicks and Stover remortgaged their jointly owned home and Stover used those funds to pay for the Acura. Specifically, the proceeds from the mortgage amounted to $34,287.93. The check was written to Dicks and Stover. Dicks endorsed the check and Stover deposited the funds in his checking account on May 24, 2001. On May 25, 2001, Stover wrote a check to Ricardo Technologies for $29,054.82, the amount that Ricardo Vargas had loaned Stover to pay for the Acura. Dicks also used the vehicle for both business and personal purposes and conducted regular maintenance on the Acura such as carwashes and oil changes. The record establishes that Dicks would suffer direct pecuniary loss by destruction of the Acura, and, therefore, the law permits her to indemnify herself from this loss with an insurance contract. . . Therefore, we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dicks had an insurable interest in the Acura.”
However, the court found that because Stover was not a named insured and was not married to Dicks, he could not maintain an action for coverage under the policy.
The court also found that Dicks was properly awarded statutory interest under MCL 500.2006 for benefits defendant withheld. In this regard, the court stated:
“Because title alone does not determine insurable interest and further investigation would have revealed that Dicks had a substantial pecuniary interest in the Acura, the claim was not reasonably in dispute at the time Secura denied coverage. Therefore, the trial court did not err in ordering Secura to pay twelve percent interest under MCL 500.2006.”
