Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Higby
| Decision Date | 09 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | AUTO-OWNERS,Docket No. 19970,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 226 N.W.2d 580,57 Mich.App. 604 |
| Parties | INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Floyd HIGBY et al., Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
George E. Potter, Anderson, Patch, Rosenfeld, Potter & Grover, Jackson, for plaintiff-appellant.
William J. Kelly, Kelly, Kelly & Kelly, Jackson, for defendants-appellees.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and VanVALKENBURG, * JJ.
Defendant Rosemary Higby was injured in an automobile accident while riding as a passenger in an automobile owned by Osborn Motor Sales. There were three different sources of insurance coverage:
(3) Auto-Owners Insurance Company policy of Mr. and Mrs. Higby.
All of the policies provied uninsured motorist coverage with limits of $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident.
Defendants filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. Apparently, believing that the claims could not be stacked, plaintiff and defendants settled the claim for $9,000. The Higbys signed a release, prepared by the plaintiff, which discharged plaintiff from liability under 'Policy No. 660301--06464553 (Osborn's Policy Number) issued to Floyd D. Higby and Rosemary Higby'.
The attorneys for both parties signed a stipulation agreement that defendants' claim against the plaintiff was dismissed with prejudice.
Shortly after the settlement the Supreme Court held that such policies could be stacked and the defendants filed an amended demand for arbitration asking for an award on the policy issued directly to the Higbys. Plaintiff filed a complaint in circuit court asking for a stay of the arbitration proceeding.
The trial judge in a written opinion stated:
'It is not logical to assume that the defendants Higby agreed to any more than their executed release states.
'The fact that the stipulation of dismissal referred also to another policy does not alter the situation if done without knowledge or authorization of the defendants Higby.'
The scope of a release is governed by its terms as indicating the intentions of the parties at the time it is accepted. O'Ferrall v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 121 S.W.2d 304 (Mo.App.1938). The release covers only claims intended by the parties to be released and has no greater effect. Continental Casualty Co. v. Baker, 181 Ark. 156, 25 S.W.2d 23 (1930).
In our opinion the parties intended to make the release effective only to the Osborn policy because this was most convenient for the insurer and they did not believe that stacking of all the policies was permitted.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romska v. Opper
...supplied), citing Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins. Exchange v. Joseph, 67 Mich.App. 393, 241 N.W.2d 221 (1976); Auto-Owners Ins. v. Higby, 57 Mich.App. 604, 226 N.W.2d 580 (1975). Sixth, we also disagree with the dissent that M.C.L. § 600.2925d; MSA 27A.2925(4), 7 which is based on the Uniform......
-
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Delzer
...Since a release is of a contractual nature, however, the intentions of the parties must govern. See Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Higby, 57 Mich.App. 604, 226 N.W.2d 580 (1975); Bruns v. Light, 74 S.D. 418, 54 N.W.2d 99 (1952); Krenz v. Medical Protective Co. of Fort Wayne, Ind., 57 Wis.......
-
Rosenbaum v. Davis Iron Works, Inc.
...only to claims that could have been in existence at the time of the execution under current state law. Auto-Owners Insur. Co. v. Higby, 57 Mich.App. 604, 226 N.W.2d 580 (1975). On November 1, 1985, when the release was executed, Plaintiff's cause of action as to the reversion had not yet ac......
-
Harris v. Lapeer Public School System
...been a party to the accident itself. A release covers only the claims intended by the parties to be released. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Higby, 57 Mich.App. 604, 226 N.W.2d 580 (1975). In Denton v. Utley, 350 Mich. 332, 86 N.W.2d 537 (1957), the Court stated that to be valid, a release must be......