Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 97197; Unpublished
Judges Weaver, Wahls, and Shamo; Unanimous; 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 unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals addressed the proper method for effective cancellation of a no-fault policy of insurance pursuant to the provisions of MCLA 500 3020.
In this case, the trial court ruled that ACIA had failed to effectively cancel an automobile insurance policy issued to Shirley and Elbur Hawkins, prior to the date of the accident on June 3, 1984. ACIA claimed that the policy had been canceled for non-payment of premium before the accident. The
Hawkins' automobiles had been insured under an ACIA policy which was renewed for a six-month term commencing February 25, 1984. Shirely Hawkins was named as the "principal insured" on the certificate and billing notice. Elbur Hawkins was named as "other insured" on both. Upon failure of Mrs. Hawkins to make installment payments on the policy, a cancellation premium notice was sent to Shirley Hawkins on April 3, 1984. After the two week period specified in the notice, a cancellation of policy, dated April 30, 1984, was mailed to Shirley Hawkins on May 1, 1984 confirming that the policy was canceled effective April 16, 1984. The cancellation notice was mailed to Shirley Hawkins, and did not contain her husband's name on the form. The trial court held that this notice was not an effective cancellation as to Mr. Hawkins.
Citing the case of Lease Car of America v Rahn, 419 Mich 48 (1984), the Court of Appeals noted that the Supreme Court in that case held that notice of cancellation of a policy must be given to all of the parties insured under the policy without limitation. Since the notice of cancellation was addressed to Shirley Hawkins, and did not contain Mr. Hawkins' name on the face of the notice of cancellation, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling that notice of cancellation was insufficient as to Mr. Hawkins.
