Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 77-2793; Published
Judges Lambros, Danhof, and Bronson; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 82 Mich App 128; Link to Opinion
Once again, the Court of Appeals affirmed the validity of a setoff provision in an uninsured motorist clause which permitted the insurance company to reduce the amounts payable under the uninsured motorist provisions by the amounts paid for PIP benefits.
In support of its holding, the Court held that it is no longer mandatory to provide or carry a minimum amount of uninsured motorist coverage. That being so, uninsured motorist benefits are purely matters of contract In addition, the Court rejected the argument that such setoff clauses render uninsured motorist clauses meaningless because "there are accidents in which people incur minimal economic losses but suffer greatly from noneconomic injuries."
[Author's Comment: This decision is consistent with items number 54 and 58.]