Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.115999; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Griffin, and Jansen; 2-1 (with Judge Griffin Dissenting); 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 2-1 per curiam Opinion, Judge Griffin dissenting, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a case involving the proper procedures for cancellation of insurance coverage.
In this case, Lawrence Phipps, while driving his motorcycle, collided with an automobile driven by Richard Craven on August 14,1985. The automobile was apparently titled in the name of Craven's fiance, Mary Markell. State Farm's insurance policy for the vehicle listed Richard Craven as the named insured with Mary Markell as a designated occasional driver. The policy was obtained on May 7,1985, through the joint efforts of Craven and Markell. On that date, Craven and Markell were living together with their two children at the home of Markell's grandmother. Although they had two children, Craven and Markell were not legally married. They claimed that they were engaged to be married.
The insurance policy, prior to the date of the accident, had been canceled as to Richard Craven pursuant to proper notice. However, plaintiff contended that his fiancée, Mary Markell, was entitled to notice of cancellation as an insured under Craven's contract The Court of Appeals found that Markell may be entitled to notice of the cancellation of the policy. The Court of Appeals relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Lease Car of America v Rahn, 419 Mich 48 (1984), which required that notice of cancellation of a policy be given to "the insured" without limitation. The statute makes no exception for a "named insured," a designated insured, or the like. Although it is unclear the extent to which all insureds are entitled to cancellation notices under the Rahn decision, the Court of Appeals held that Markell would appear to be entitled to notice since she was listed as a person to be insured within the applicant's household and was listed as an occasional driver of the vehicle insured.
The Court of Appeals noted that in Auto Club v Hawkins, 435 Mich 328 (1990), it was held that where notice of cancellation is properly provided to the "principal named insured," it is sufficient notice to any other insured person who is a "family member and who lives in the same household." However, under the facts of this case, it is unclear as to whether Craven and Markell were living in the same household together or would be classified as "family members." Since the trial court did not address these issues, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Judge Griffin would affirm the decision of the trial court on all issues, and would hold that a separate notice to Mary Markell was not required.
