Maryland Cas. Co. v. McGee, Docket No. 8656
Citation | 189 N.W.2d 44,32 Mich.App. 539 |
Decision Date | 21 April 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 8656,1 |
Parties | MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eugene McGEE and Doris Alexander, Defendants-Appellees |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Ralph F. Jackson, Davidson, Gotshall, Halsey, Kohl, Nelson, Secrest & Wardle, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.
William N. Bradford, Southfield, for defendants-appellees; Stephen M. Landau, Southfield, for counsel.
Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and LEVIN, and PETERSON, * JJ.
Plaintiff is defendant's motor vehicle insurer. In addition to the usual casualty and liability coverage, the policy purchased by defendant included uninsured motorist coverage by which plaintiff agreed to pay its insured all damages sustained by the insured in an accident 'arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of (an) uninsured automobile,' which the insured would 'be legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of (such) uninsured automobile.' The policy further provides that the right to such damages and the amount thereof shall be determined by arbitration, absent agreement thereon:
'provided, for the purposes of this coverage, determination as to whether the insured or such representative is legally entitled to recover such damages, and if so the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured or such representative and the company or, if they fail to agree, by arbitration.'
And:
(Emphasis added)
One of the policy definitions of an uninsured automobile, is 'a hit-and-run automobile,' which in turn is defined as follows:
"hit-and-run automobile' means an automobile which causes bodily injury to an insured arising out of physical contact of such automobile with the insured or with an automobile which the insured is occupying at the time of the accident, provided: (a) there cannot be ascertained the identity of either the operator or the owner of such 'hit-and-run automobile'; (b) the insured or someone on his behalf shall have reported the accident within 24 hours to a police, peace or judicial officer or to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, and shall have filed with the company within 30 days thereafter a statement under oath that the insured or his legal representative has a cause or causes of action arising out of such accident for damages against a person or persons whose identity is unascertainable ascertainable, and setting forth the facts in support thereof; and (c) at the company's request, the insured or his legal representative makes available for inspection the automobile which the insured was occupying at the time of the accident.'
Defendant insured alleges that on February 13, 1968, on highway I--94 an unidentified automobile cut in front of his car, striking it, and driving it off the expressway, with resulting injuries to defendant and his passenger. Claiming to come within the 'hit-and-run' definition above, defendant instituted a claim with the American Arbitration Association.
Plaintiff insurer, however, asserts that there can be no arbitration, denying that there was any physical contact between defendant's automobile and an alleged 'hit-and-run' vehicle. It contends that while the insurance contract precludes judicial determination of the cause of action of the insured Vis-a-vis the uninsured motorist, if any, that being determined solely by arbitration, 1 Whether there is a question for arbitration is a separate question which is not arbitrable and which can be settled solely by judicial proceedings. In this view of the contract, one of the parties in a case such as this must seek declaratory relief. 2 Assuming a determination favorable to the insured on the question of whether there was a 'hit-and-run' accident, or whatever other factual question might be posed as a prerequisite to arbitration, 3 the dispute would then be commenced anew in arbitration. In such cases the result is to duplicate in two different forums the trial of what is essentially the same factual question arising out of a single event.
Plaintiff accordingly brought its action seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether its insured had been in an accident with an uninsured motorist as defined in the contract so as to be entitled to go to arbitration about that accident. The trial judge took a more frugal view of the procedure. He concluded that it was wasteful of the time and effort of the parties, productive of unnecessary litigation, and inconsistent with the ends which arbitration is designed to meet. He granted the insured's motion for summary judgment and entered an order requiring the arbitrator to determine whether there was physical contact between the insured vehicle and the alleged 'hit-and-run' vehicle. Plaintiff appeals.
This question was before the Court in Western Casualty & Surety Company v. Strange (1966), 3 Mich.App. 733, 736, 143 N.W.2d 572. In that case, we said:
We think Western Casualty errs in assuming as a basic premise that Carr says that the only matters arbitrable under an insurance contract are those specified in the contract. 4 Carr and Acme Cut Stone Co. v. New Center Development Corp. (1937), 281 Mich. 32, 274 N.W. 700, upon which Carr relies, merely state the general proposition that arbiters derive their powers from the arbitration submission agreement. Neither Carr nor Acme involved...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Benson
...decides coverage issues when coverage issues are not expressly exempted from arbitration by the policy); Maryland Cas. Co. v. McGee, 32 Mich.App. 539, 189 N.W.2d 44 (1971) (arbitrator decides all issues of disagreement between insured and insurance company); Dunshee v. State Farm Mut. Auto.......
-
Bel Pre Medical Center, Inc. v. Frederick Contractors, Inc.
...455, 457 (1973); Michigan Mutual Liability Co. v. Graham, 44 Mich.App. 406, 205 N.W.2d 289, 291 (1973); Maryland Casualty Co. v. McGee, 32 Mich.App. 539, 189 N.W.2d 44, 48 (1971); 10 Grover-Dimond Assoc. v. American Arbitration Ass'n, Minn., 211 N.W.2d 787, 790 A problem is created for the ......
-
Keith v. Chrysler Corp.
...see Harraka v. Board of Review of Department of Employment Security, Supra.13 For example, compare Maryland Casualty Co. v. McGee, 32 Mich.App. 539, 189 N.W.2d 44 (1971), with Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Strange, 3 Mich.App. 733, 143 N.W.2d 572 (1966); and Lexington Townhouses Cooperat......
-
American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Barry
..."to segregate disputed issues into arbitrable sheep and judicially-triable goats (or vice versa )". Maryland Casualty Co. v. McGee, 32 Mich.App. 539, 545, 189 N.W.2d 44, 47 (1971); see also Michigan Mutual Liability Co. v. Graham, 44 Mich.App. 406, 407, 205 N.W.2d 289 (1973). If the arbitra......