Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 97886; Unpublished
Judges Gillis, Holbrook, and Andrews; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Scope of Mandated Coverages [§3131(1)]
Liability Exclusions Prohibiting Stacking of Coverages [§3131]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's declaratory judgment ruling that an "anti-stacking" clause in defendant's residual liability coverage enforceable, thereby preventing plaintiffs from obtaining any additional coverage on a vehicle not involved in the accident. The vehicle operated by defendant was insured under a multiple vehicle policy. After receiving the limits of residual coverage under the policy for the vehicle involved in the collision, plaintiff sought additional recovery under the coverage for another vehicle owned by defendant, covered by the same policy, but not involved in the accident.
Rejecting plaintiff’s argument that Powers (Item No. 979) controlled the Court of Appeals held that Powers was not binding precedent, and further, that Powers was restricted to "owned vehicle" exclusions. In this case, the anti-stacking clause in this multiple vehicle policy was held enforceable, and none of the arguments raised by plaintiff demonstrated that the anti-stacking endorsement was unenforceable.
