Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 232579; Published
Judges White, Neff and Jansen; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 253 Mich, App. 664, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Compulsory Insurance Requirements for Owners or Registrants of Motor Vehicles Required to Be Registered [3101(1)]
Scope of Mandated Coverages [3131(1)]
Limits of Liability Insurance [3131(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that where plaintiff struck and killed her 2-year old daughter while operating a vehicle owned by her grandmother and insured by Allstate Insurance, plaintiff did not have residual liability coverage under her own insurance policy with Farmers which provided coverage on her own vehicle, where that policy excluded coverage for bodily injury to “an insured person.” In this case, “insured person” was defined as the policyholder or a family member of the policy. It was not disputed that plaintiff’s daughter was an insured person within the meaning of the Farmers’ policy.
From a grant of summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff, Farmers appealed, contending that the exclusion from residual liability coverage contained in its policy issued to the driver who did not own the vehicle involved in the accident is valid and enforceable. Farmers relied upon Citizens Insurance Company v Federated Mutual Insurance Company, 448 Mich 225; 531 NW2d 138 (1995) and Husted v Auto Owners Insurance Company, 459 Mich 500; 591 NW2d 642 (1999). Farmers argued that the central holdings in those decisions was that an insurer need not provide residual liability coverage to its insured when the insured is operating a vehicle that he or she does not own.
In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff was not required to have residual liability coverage for her operation of a vehicle that she did not own or register. MCL 500.3101. She was only required to carry residual liability coverage for her own vehicle, and she had such coverage.
In rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the previous Supreme Court decision in State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company v Sivey, 404 Mich 51; 272 NW2d 555 (1978) had determined an exclusion for bodily injury to an “insured person” to be in violation of public policy, the Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court’s previous decision in Sivey had not found the “insured person” exclusion to be invalid in the context of a claim under the No-Fault Act for residual liability insurance, where the insured was driving a vehicle neither owned nor registered by the insured. In so holding, the Court of Appeals stated:
“This is an owner’s policy and the insurer is not required under the No-Fault Act to provide blanket portable coverage to the insured when the insured drives another insured vehicle. . . . Instead, any coverage is afforded by the insurance policy issued for the vehicle involved in the accident, that being plaintiff’s grandmother’s van.”
The court also held that such an exclusion does not violate public policy because it is allegedly in conflict with the abolition of intra-family tort immunity, as this argument was rejected in Farm Bureau v Moore, 190 Mich App 115 (1991).
