Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 140127; Unpublished
Judges Marilyn Kelly, Shepherd, and Connor; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability Policy Exclusions for Owned and Non-Owned Vehicles [§3131]
Liability Exclusions Prohibiting Stacking of Coverages [§3131]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals interpreted the residual liability provisions of an automobile insurance policy to preclude "stacking" of coverages on three vehicles owned by the insured, and in doing so, reversed the decision of the trial court.
The plaintiff Haight was injured on October 16,1987 when struck by a vehicle owned and operated by defendant Lee and insured by defendant Auto Club under a multiple vehicle policy. Lee owned three vehicles insured under the policy for $25,000 each. Plaintiff contended that a total of $75,000 was available under the policy representing the $25,000 coverage on each of the three vehicles.
In reversing the trial court decision allowing stacking, the Court of Appeals held that the insurance policy involved clearly and unambiguously precluded stacking, duplication, or pyramiding of coverages. Anti-stacking provisions that are clear and unambiguous are not contrary to public policy. State Farm Insurance Company v Tiedman, 181 Mich App 619(1989).
In this case, multiple provisions of the policy precluded stacking. In the bodily injury liability coverage section, it is provided that the insurance company would pay damages for which an insured person is legally liable arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the insured car. In the policy, insured car means the insured's vehicle which is described on the declarations certificate. The Court of Appeals held that this provision meant that the vehicle being operated by defendant Lee at the time of the accident was the only vehicle that fell within the definition of an insured vehicle.
The Court of Appeals also relied upon an exclusion in the policy which clearly and unambiguously provided that coverage for a loss is excluded for the use of any vehicle owned by the insured, unless the vehicle is the one described on the declarations certificate. Thus, the court held that the exclusion applied to all vehicles owned by Lee, with the exception of the vehicle that was actually in use at the time of the accident.
Finally, the Court of Appeals relied upon a provision of the general conditions which explicitly precluded pyramiding or duplicating amounts or limits of coverages available.
