Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 137150; Unpublished
Judges MacKenzie, Hood, and White; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Cancellation and Rescission of Insurance Policies
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals dealt with the issue of who was entitled to notice of the cancellation of an insurance policy where there are multiple insureds.
In the case at bar, Kroyer and Blossom were business partners. Kroyer was the title owner of the vehicle in question. The vehicle was insured under a no-fault automobile policy issued by Celina Insurance Group. Seventeen days after the business partnership ended, Kroyer canceled the insurance policy on the vehicle which Blossom was driving. Celina did not send Blossom a cancellation notice. Shortly thereafter, Blossom was involved in an accident that caused the death of Mr. Zieglar. Zieglar's estate argued that Celina's cancellation was not effective because no notice of cancellation was sent to Blossom. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that notice of cancellation to Blossom was not required because the cancellation that occurred in this case was effectuated by an insured person, not the insurance company. The court stated, "Under the no-fault act, an insured who cancels a policy must give notice to all insureds . . . . On the other hand, where the insured cancels the policy, no notice is required by the statute [MCLA 500.3020(1 )(a)]. Under that provision, no notice was required in this case because coverage was canceled by an insured." The court stated that it was aware of contrary dicta in the case of National Ben Franklin v West, 136 Mich App 436 (1984), but also noted that in that decision, the Ben Franklin court stated, "We are struck by the fact that both the policy and the statute require written notice only if the insured cancels the policy."
