Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 237161; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Meter, and Owens; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General / Miscellaneous [3109]
Scope of Mandated Coverages [3131(1)]
Liability Policy Exclusions for Intentionally Caused Injury [3131(1)]
Liability for Intentionally Caused Harm [3135(3)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that an insurance company was obligated to indemnify and defend its insured even though her act of hitting and injuring another person with an automobile was alleged to have been intentional.
The Court of Appeals held that Modern Service Insurance Company, the insurer for Rachel Finkel, was obligated to provide her with defense and indemnification for her act of hitting and injuring another person which the insurance company alleged was an intentional act and not an accident. Modern’s insurance policy contained language which provided residual liability coverage only for an “accident” and excluded coverage for intentional acts.
The Court of Appeals held that this case was squarely governed by the previous decision in Detroit Automobile Inter Insurance Exchange v Higginbotham, 95 Mich App 213 (1980). In that case, also involving an assault, the Court of Appeals held that MCL 500.3131 requires residual liability insurance coverage for automobile liability retained by section 3135 of the No-Fault Act. Section 3135 states that such automobile liability includes intentionally caused harm to persons or property.
In other words, section 3131 requires residual liability insurance to cover any liability that 3135 has retained. The Court of Appeals held that the subsequent amendments to section 3135 of the No-Fault Act do not alter this conclusion, since the amendments did not change the language in 3135 on which the Higginbotham court relied. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Higginbotham court properly interpreted the plain language of the statutes at issue.
The Court of Appeals rejected the insurance company’s argument that coverage should be limited to the statutory minimums found in MCL 500.3009(1), because that argument had not been made below.
