Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 86033; Published
Justices Riley, Griffin, Cavanagh, Levin, Brickley, Boyle, and Archer; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 435 Mich 328; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Cancellation and Rescission of Insurance Policies
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether an insurance company provided adequate notice of its intent to cancel a no-fault automobile insurance policy when it provided notice to the "principal named insured" but did not provide notice of cancellation to her spouse who had been listed as an "other named insured" on previous endorsements.
The court distinguished its earlier opinion in Lease Car of America v Rahn, 419 Mich 48 (1984), wherein the court held that the cancellation statute (MCLA 500.3020) required notice of cancellation to all insureds covered by the policy not only the specific individual insured person who the policy language designated as entitled to notice. The court distinguished the Lease Car case as involving "a situation that was quite a bit different than the present case. There a corporation leased an automobile to an individual." The corporate lessor was listed as the named insured on the insurance policy and it never received notice of cancellation.
In the case at bar, the court concluded that the insurance company had in fact satisfied the cancellation requirements of §3020. The court stated:
"We hold today that, where notice of cancellation is properly provided to the 'principal named insured' or (if the policy terminology is different) to the insured in whose name the policy was issued, that is sufficient notice to any other insured person who is a family member and who lives in the same household. We are confident that this outcome fulfills the intent of the Legislature, as well as the considerations underlying our decision in Lease Car."
The court reversed judgment of the Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court and remanded the case for entry of a judgment consistent with the opinion.
