Garrison v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 July 1978
• Docket Number: Docket No. 77-4359
• Citation: 270 N.W.2d 678,84 Mich.App. 734
• Parties: Frank GARRISON and Edna (Edwards) Garrison, jointly and severally, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. 84 Mich.App. 734, 270 N.W.2d 678
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 678

270 N.W.2d 678

Frank GARRISON and Edna (Edwards) Garrison, jointly and severally, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 77-4359.

84 Mich.App. 734, 270 N.W.2d 678

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

July 18, 1978.

Released for Publication Oct. 20, 1978.

[84 MICHAPP 735] Conlin, Conlin & McKenney by Chris L. McKenney, Ann Arbor, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Mainolfi, McGraw & Borchard by John W. McGraw, Saginaw, for defendant-appellee.

Before BEASLEY, P. J., and ALLEN and DEMING, ^* JJ.

DEMING, Judge.

On September 28, 1973, plaintiff, Edna Garrison, while driving her husband's car, was involved in an automobile accident. As a result, two suits for damages have been filed against her. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment to the effect that she was covered under the extended liability provisions of her insurance policy issued by defendant which provided liability coverage whenever she operated a "non-owned" automobile. The trial court entered an order of declaratory relief for the defendant holding that under the terms of the policy defendant was not liable to provide coverage. Plaintiffs appeal as of right.

Before the plaintiffs' marriage on June 30, 1973, both plaintiffs owned their own automobiles. These automobiles were insured with different insurance companies. Both of the policies purchased before the marriage were still in effect at the time of the accident.

The relevant portions of the insurance policy provide [84 MICHAPP 736] "Part I Liability

"Coverage A Bodily Injury Liability; Coverage B Property Damage Liability: To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of:

"A. bodily injury, * * *

"B. * * * 'property damage';

arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the owned automobile or any non-owned automobile.

"Definitions: Under Part I:

" 'named insured' means the individual named in the declarations and also includes his spouse, if a resident of the same household;

" 'non-owned automobile' means an automobile or trailer not owned by or furnished for the regular use of either the named insured or any relative, other than a temporary substitute automobile;"

Although the structure of the policy provisions is rather complex, the policy in substance states that the insurer will "pay * * * all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages * * * arising out of the * * * use of the owned automobile or * * * (any automobile or trailer, not owned by) * * * (the individual named in the declarations and * * * his spouse, if a resident of the same household)". Although it is a general rule that any ambiguity in an insurance contract will be resolved in favor of the insured, Vermont Mutual Ins. Co. v. Dalzell, 52 Mich.App. 686, 691, 218 N.W.2d 52 (1974), these provisions are not ambiguous and must be interpreted as written, Western Fire Ins. Co. v. J. R. Snyder, Inc., 76 Mich.App. 242, 256 N.W.2d 451 (1977).

Plaintiff also argues that if the policy provisions are interpreted so that coverage is not provided in this situation, then they are void as being against [84 MICHAPP 737] the public policy of the State of Michigan as set out in the Financial Responsibility Act, M.C.L. § 257.501 Et seq., M.S.A. § 9.2201 Et seq. M.C.L. § 257.520(c), M.S.A. § 9.2220(c) reads in part:

"Such operator's policy of liability insurance shall insure the person named as insured therein against loss from the liability imposed upon him by law for damages arising out of the use by him of any motor vehicle not owned by him."

Plaintiffs claim that since Edna is a named insured under the policy and since she did not have legal ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident, the statute requires that liability coverage be provided. However, we do not read the statute to require coverage in this situation. Under the insurance policy provisions, the husband was a "named insured". His status, via contract, as a "named insured", by virtue of the fact that he is the spouse of the "individual named in the declaration" has been recognized by this Court, see Hickman v. Community Service Ins. Co., 78 Mich.App. 1, 5-6, 259 N.W.2d 367 (1977). Since the husband is a "named insured" under the policy, the statute does not require that liability coverage be provided for any automobile owned by him except for the owned automobile described in the policy. Since Edna was operating an automobile owned by the named insured which was not the owned automobile described in the policy, M.C.L. § 257.520(c); M.S.A. § 9.2220(c) does not require that the insurance policy provide liability coverage for this accident.

Although not controlling,...