Sentry Sec. Systems, Inc. v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Insurance Exchange, INTER-INSURANCE
| Decision Date | 05 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 56411,INTER-INSURANCE,56411 |
| Citation | 228 N.W.2d 779,394 Mich. 96 |
| Parties | SENTRY SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DETROIT AUTOMOBILEEXCHANGE, a Michigan Insurance Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. 394 Mich. 96, 228 N.W.2d 779 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
J. Patrick Martin, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Eric J. McCann, Bloomfield Hills, for defendant-appellant.
The factual background for this case is reported at 56 Mich.App. 182, 223 N.W.2d 708 (1974). We grant leave to appeal and peremptorily, under GCR 1963, 865.1(7), reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for the entry of a judgment declaring that the policy of insurance issued by the defendant company does not provide non-owned automobile insurance coverage to a corporate named insured.
Under the policy of insurance, liability coverage with respect to non-owned automobiles applies as to the 'named insured' only if he is an 'individual.'
The plaintiff corporation is, for some purposes, a 'person,' but it is not an 'individual.' The word 'individual' is used to distinguish between a corporate entity person and a natural person: 'The wording 'individual' in its plain, ordinary and generally accepted meaning does not include a corporation.' Suttenfield v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 133 F.Supp. 418, at 424 (E.D.Tex., 1955).
The purpose of the 'individual' limitation is to provide coverage to natural persons as to non-owned automobiles, but to require persons engaged in business to purchase additional non-owned automobile coverage because of the considerable added risks involved.
The purpose of coverage (c) (see 56 Mich.App. at 185, 223 N.W.2d at 709), is to extend the insurance to a person or organization Other than the insured under certain circumstances where the actual use is by a person who is insured under coverage (2) (as to an owned automobile) or coverage (b) (as to a non-owned automobile). Since the actual use of this automobile was by a person who was not insured under either (a) or (b) there is no coverage under (c).
The exclusion of a corporate named insured from such non-owned coverage is made clearer because of exclusion (g) (see 56 Mich.App. at 186, 223 N.W.2d at 710). That exclusion states that the coverage does not apply to any use of the automobile in any business or occupation of the insured except under circumstances not here pertinent.
Reversed and remanded for entry of appropriate judgment.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hertz Corp. v. Ashbaugh
...only, and not to include Tilman H. Ashbaugh individually. We feel as the Michigan court did in Sentry Security Systems, Inc. v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 394 Mich. 96, 228 N.W.2d 779 (1975), that the language of Foundation's policy obviously was "not designed to be used to insure a bu......
-
City of Ypsilanti v. Appalachian Ins. Co.
...and its own common sense. Words are to be given their plain, ordinary and generally accepted meanings. Sentry Security Systems, Inc. v. DAIIE, 394 Mich. 96, 228 N.W.2d 779 (1975). However, any ambiguities in liability insurance policies, particularly those prepared by the Insurer, are to be......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Harvey
...is recognized as designating a natural person and not including business entities such as corporations. Sentry Security Systems, Inc. v. DAIIE, 394 Mich. 96, 97, 228 N.W.2d 779 (1975). Moreover, the language of the policy in question expressly excludes corporations, firms, and partnerships ......
-
School Dist. for City of Royal Oak v. Continental Cas. Co.
...Systems, Inc. v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, 56 Mich.App. 182, 223 N.W.2d 708 (1974), rev'd on other grounds, 394 Mich. 96, 228 N.W.2d 779 (1975) (" 'As a general rule, the construction of a written contract of insurance is a matter of law to be determined by the court....'......