Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 76620; Published
Judges Brennan, Cynar, and Simon; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 151 Mich App 252; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Scope of Mandated Coverages [§3131(1)]
Liability Policy Exclusions for Owned and Non-Owned Vehicles [§3131]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in State Farm v Ruuska (Item No. 487), ruled that two liability insurance policies on vehicles that were not involved in a fatal accident could be stacked on top of the insurance policy covering the vehicle involved in the accident, thereby resulting in three separate policies providing liability coverage for the accident. In this case, a husband and wife owned three automobiles. The one involved in the accident was a 1968 Dodge Coronet which listed the wife as principal named insured, and the husband as a separate insured. The other two vehicles, a 1974 Dodge Swinger and a 1968 Corvette, were insured under a single contract with the wife listed as the principal named insured and the principal driver of both vehicles. The husband was not listed on this policy as a named insured. The accident in question occurred when the husband was driving the 1968 Dodge Coronet. Each of the three vehicles were insured up to $20,000 per person/$40,000 per occurrence. The trial court ruled that there were three separate policies in all, thereby resulting in $60,000 of liability coverage available to the husband.
The trial judge ruled that three justices writing with the majority in Ruuska clearly invalidated a nonowned vehicle exclusion on the basis that it was contrary to the intent of the no-fault act which requires residual liability coverage stemming from the use of a motor vehicle. Even though these three justices limited their decision to the facts of the Ruuska decision, the trial court felt that such a philosophy would apply in any situation involving a nonowned vehicle clause. In addition, the trial court felt that there was insufficient basis to distinguish Ruuska from the case at bar simply because of the fact that the wife in this case owned the three automobiles and purchased the insurance in her name. Clearly, the husband is definitionally a named insured under all three of the policies.
The Court of Appeals was persuaded by the trial court's analysis and ruled, "We find the trial court's reasoning sound and adopt it for our opinion." The Court of Appeals also adopted the trial court's ruling that even though two of the automobiles were listed in one contract, there were actually two separate insurance policies in light of the fact that there were separate premiums paid for each coverage. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that the defendant insurer is required to provide $60,000 worth of coverage for the wrongful death caused by this accident.
