Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 73760; Published
Judges MacKenzie, Gillis, and Fitzgerald; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 135 Mich App 567; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Casualty Insurance Policies – Minimum Coverages and Required Provisions (MCL 500.3009)
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion deals with the validity of an exclusionary clause in an auto liability policy. The facts were as follows: Mother and father were named insureds on a policy of auto insurance issued by DAIIE providing residual liability coverage of $100,000 per person, $300,000 per occurrence. The mother was injured while a passenger of the insured vehicle at a time when it was driven by her son. The DAIIE policy contained an exclusionary clause which stated that it did not apply to "bodily injury to any named insured." The mother argued that the exclusionary clause was invalid and that she was entitled to liability coverage up to the stated policy limits. The trial court concluded that the exclusionary clause was indeed valid and DAIIE did not question that finding upon appeal. However, DAIIE argued that the policy should only be enforced up to the statutorily required minimum liability limits of $20,000/$40,000. The trial court rejected that argument and the Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that DAIIE should have been aware that the policy at issue contained a clause that, if not totally void, was certainly ambiguous in the instant situation. Therefore, the mother was entitled to liability coverage up to the maximum stated limits of the policy.
