Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 105412; Unpublished
Judges Shepherd, Murphy, and Gillespie; Unanimous; Per Curium
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 per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault insurance benefits because the policy of insurance had been properly canceled prior to the accident.
Plaintiff leased a vehicle from Ford Motor Credit Company, and purchased a no-fault insurance policy naming him as the principal named insured. Ford Motor was endorsed on the policy as an additional insured.
Plaintiff failed to make a monthly installment payment under the policy, and Auto Club sent a cancellation notice pursuant to MCLA 500.3020. A month later, when plaintiff had failed to make any payment, a notice was sent to plaintiff confirming that the policy had been canceled. Following cancellation, plaintiff was injured in an accident while operating the vehicle. Ford Motor Credit Company filed a claim for its property damage, and this claim was settled because Auto Club did not have sufficient documentation to prove that it gave proper notice of cancellation to Ford Motor.
Plaintiff did not contest the sufficiency of the notice of cancellation, but rather claimed that because Ford Motor Company was allegedly not given notice of the cancellation, the policy could not be canceled. Plaintiff relied on the Supreme Court decision in Lease Car v Rahn, 419 Mich 48 (1984), which validated an attempted cancellation because "all parties insured under the policy, had not been given notice."
In distinguishing Lease Car, supra, the Court of Appeals here held that because plaintiff had actually received notice of the cancellation, the public policy objectives of MCLA 500.3020 had been satisfied. In Lease Car, supra, the decision had been premised upon the fact that the insured who had not received notice was making a claim for benefits.
Here, where the insured making the claim has actually received notice, public policy does not preclude enforcement-of a cancellation provision in a policy for failure to pay premiums against those insureds who have actually received notice of cancellation.
