State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Peckham, Docket No. 27303

• Citation: 74 Mich.App. 551,254 N.W.2d 575
• Decision Date: 30 March 1977
• Docket Number: Docket No. 27303
• Parties: STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lola PECKHAM, Administratrix of the Estate of Aloysius Clayton Brackett, Deceased, and Mary Brackett, Defendants-Appellants. 74 Mich.App. 551, 254 N.W.2d 575
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)

Page 575

254 N.W.2d 575

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lola PECKHAM, Administratrix of the Estate of Aloysius

Clayton Brackett, Deceased, and Mary Brackett,

Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 27303.

74 Mich.App. 551, 254 N.W.2d 575

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

March 30, 1977.

Released for Publication June 21, 1977.

[74 MICHAPP 552] Dean A. Robb, P.C. by Thomas L. Phillips, Traverse City, for defendants-appellants.

Williams, Coulter, Cunningham, Davison & Read by Douglas J. Read, Traverse City, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WALSH, P. J., and QUINN and BASHARA, JJ.

QUINN, Judge.

Defendants appeal from a summary judgment granted to plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action. By this action plaintiff asked to be relieved from defending and from paying damages in an action brought by defendant Brackett against defendant Peckham as administratrix of the Estate of A. C. Brackett, deceased. A. C. Brackett was defendant Brackett's husband. He was the driver of the automobile in which she was a passenger at the time of a collision that caused his death and her injuries.

A. C. Brackett was insured by plaintiff. Defendant Brackett, as plaintiff, sued defendant Peckham as administratrix of A. C. Brackett's estate to recover for the injuries sustained in the collision. Plaintiff's policy with A. C. Brackett contained the following:

"SECTION I LIABILITY AND MEDICAL PAYMENTS

"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 sustained by other persons, and

[74 MICHAPP 553] "(B) Property damage, caused by accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use, including loading or unloading of the owned motor vehicle ; and to defend, with attorneys selected by and compensated by the company, in a suit against the insured alleging such bodily injury or property damage in seeking damages which are payable hereunder even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent; but the company can make such investigation, negotiation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient."

"EXCLUSIONS SECTION 1 THIS INSURANCE DOES NOT APPLY UNDER:

"(h) COVERAGE A. TO BODILY INJURY TO ANY INSURED OR ANY MEMBER OF THE FAMILY OF AN INSURED RESIDING IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD AS THE INSURED;"

"DEFINITIONS SECTION 1

"INSURED the unqualified word 'Insured' includes,

"(1) the named insured, and

"(2) if the named insured is an individual, his spouse, if a resident of the same household, and . . . ."

Plaintiff's claim of nonliability is based on the foregoing exclusion. The trial judge sustained plaintiff's position by granting the summary judgment. On appeal, defendants claim reversal is required and make three arguments in support of their position.

First defendants say:

"The household exclusion contained in plaintiff-appellee's policy of liability insurance is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Financial Responsibility Act and the Married Woman's Act and is therefore void."

On the basis of the reasoning in Weisberg v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, 36 Mich.App. 513, 194 N.W.2d 193 (1971) and M.C.L.A. § [74 MICHAPP 554] 500.3009(2); M.S.A. § 24.13009(2), we reject the argument that the household exclusion is contrary to the spirit and intent of the...