Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 137088; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Michael J. Kelly, and Gribbs; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Cancellation of Auto Liability Policies (MCL 500.3204, et seq.)
Casualty Insurance Policies – Minimum Coverages and Required Provisions (MCL 500.3009)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the attempted exclusion of a named driver was invalid because the exclusion did not comply with the requirements of MCLA 500.3009(2) that a warning appear on the face of the policy or the declaration page or the certificate of policy and on the certificate of insurance.
Plaintiffs were severely injured in an automobile accident involving a vehicle driven by Daniel Czyzniewski. Before the accident, Czyzniewski and his wife had a policy with Michigan Mutual insuring the vehicle in question. Michigan Mutual, however, cancelled that policy before the accident on the grounds that Czyzniewski had a prior conviction for driving while impaired.
Czyzniewski then purchased a replacement policy, but the certificate and actual policy were not mailed to him until after the accidents in this case. The policy provided for coverage only for Czyzniewski's wife, and named Czyzniewski as an excluded driver.
The trial court concluded that the original policy had not been properly canceled within the provisions of MCLA 500.3224(3). The trial court also determined that Czyzniewski had not been properly excluded from coverage under the replacement policy because he did not receive the required statutory warnings on the face of the policy or declaration page or certificate of policy, and on the certificate of insurance.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the original policy had been effectively canceled. However, the court ruled that the trial court had correctly determined that Czyzniewski had not been effectively excluded from coverage under the policy, because the policy documents did not contain the required warnings. The requirements of the statute regarding warnings must be met before a named individual, will be deemed excluded.
