State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Enterprise Leasing Co., Docket No. 168790
| Decision Date | 20 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 168790 |
| Citation | 206 Mich.App. 7,520 N.W.2d 663 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and Snappy Car Rental, Amicus Curiae. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Romain, Donofrio, Kuck & Egerer, P.C. by Ernst W. Kuck, Southfield, for plaintiff.
Gofrank & Kelman by Thomas M. Douglas, Southfield, for defendant.
Siemion, Huckabay, Bodary, Padilla, Morganti & Bowerman, P.C. by Charles A. Huckabay and Donna M. Severyn, Detroit, for amicus curiae, Snappy Car Rental, Inc.
Before DOCTOROFF, C.J., and HOLBROOK, Jr., MacKENZIE, WAHLS, HOOD, GRIBBS, SAWYER, WEAVER, MURPHY, RICHARD ALLEN GRIFFIN, NEFF, FITZGERALD, and TAYLOR, JJ.
This case is before us for a resolution pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1990-6 of a conflict in the decisions of the Court of Appeals. In the previous opinion in this case, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Enterprise Leasing Co., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided September 30, 1993 (Docket No. 150077), this Court reversed the trial court's summary disposition in favor of plaintiff on the basis of the prior decision from this Court in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Snappy Car Rental, Inc., 196 Mich.App. 143, 492 N.W.2d 500 (1992). Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1990-6, we vacated the decision in this case pending resolution by this panel.
The question certified for this panel is as follows:
[W]hether pursuant to MCL 500.3101(1); MSA 24.13101(1) and MCL 257.520(b)(2); MSA 9.2220(b)(2) a car rental company may include in its rental agreement an option allowing the permissive user of a vehicle to provide his or her own primary residual liability insurance, as found in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co v Snappy Car Rental, Inc, 196 Mich App 143; 492 NW2d 500 (1992), lv den 442 Mich 884 (1993); or whether the car rental company must provide primary residual liability insurance for a permissive user pursuant to its policy of insurance, as would have been the holding in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co v. Enterprise Leasing Co, unpublished per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided September 30, 1993 (No. 150077), absent Administrative Order 1990-6.
We conclude that State Farm Mutual v. Snappy Car Rental, supra, is the appropriate resolution and, accordingly, reverse the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of plaintiff-appellee.
Reversed and remanded.
We agree with the majority's careful statement of the issue before us, but dissent because we would reach a different resolution.
We would hold instead that under M.C.L. § 500.3101(1); M.S.A. § 24.13101(1) and M.C.L. § 257.520(b)(2); M.S.A. § 9.2220(b)(2) an owner's policy of liability insurance is required to provide primary residual liability insurance for any permissive user. The arguments in support of this position were set forth in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Enterprise Leasing Co., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided September 30, 1993 (No. 150077) (), and the dissent in Citizens Ins. Co. of America v. Federated Mutual Ins. Co., 199 Mich.App. 345, 348, 500 N.W.2d 773 (1993).
Although we are cognizant of the policy arguments on both sides of this issue, we feel that the merits of these arguments should be addressed by the Legislature rather than this Court.
We would affirm.
APPENDIX
Before WEAVER, P.J., and MURPHY and JANSEN, JJ.
Ladonna Teasley rented a car from defendant Enterprise Leasing Company to use while her car was being repaired. While driving the rental car, Teasley was involved in an accident. The resulting personal injury claims were settled, and the claims paid by Teasley's automobile insurer and Enterprise. Now State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company has brought suit against Enterprise to determine who is responsible for the damages. Both State Farm and Enterprise moved for summary disposition, each arguing that the other was the primary insurer responsible for providing residual liability insurance for the accident. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of State Farm. Enterprise now appeals. We reverse and remand.
In the rental agreement Teasley signed, she warranted that she had insurance through State Farm and agreed to provide insurance for the rental vehicle and hold Enterprise harmless.
State Farm's policy provided residual liability coverage only if there was no other coverage available and excluded coverage if the insured was driving a car owned by a car business if there was other insurance to cover the vehicle. State Farm also argued that Enterprise's rental agreement was void because it violated certain statutory provisions: M.C.L. § 257.520(b)(2); M.S.A. § 9.2220(b)(2), M.C.L. § 500.3101; M.S.A. § 24.13101, M.C.L. § 500.3131; M.S.A. § 24.13131, and M.C.L. § 500.3135; M.S.A. § 24.13135.
Enterprise first asserts that the requirements of the Michigan financial responsibility act are not violated by the provision in its rental agreement. Enterprise points out that the renter agreed to provide her own insurance coverage for the vehicle , and Enterprise still assumed financialresponsibility for the rental vehicle on an excess basis to the primary personal liability insurance coverage of the renter.
This case involves the requirements of the no-fault act and the financial responsibility law relating to vehicle ownership. Section 3101(1) of the no-fault act, M.C.L. § 500.3101(1); M.S.A. § 24.13101(1), provides as follows:
The owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state shall maintain security for payment of benefits under personal protection insurance, property protection insurance, and residual liability insurance. Security shall be in effect continuously during the period of registration of the motor vehicle.
Section 520(b)(2) of the financial responsibility portion of the Vehicle Code, M.C.L. § 257.520(b)(2); M.S.A. § 9.2220(b)(2), states that an owner's automobile liability insurance policy
[s]hall insure the person named therein and any other person, as insured, using any such motor vehicle or motor vehicles with the express or implied permission of such named insured, against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such motor vehicle.
The question is whether the owner of a vehicle must always be primarily responsible for insuring against liability resulting from vehicle accidents, or whether the owner of a vehicle may contract or agree that the driver of the vehicle will be primarily responsible for liability insurance.
We are bound by Administrative Order No. 1990-6 to follow the recent case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Snappy Car Rental, Inc., 196 Mich.App. 143, 492 N.W.2d 500 (1992). Snappy, held that a person signing a short-term rental agreement for a vehicle can agree that his personal automobile insurance contract will provide primary liability coverage for accidents that occur while he has the rented vehicle and that such an agreement was not void.
We disagree with Snappy and, if not bound to follow it, would hold that an owner's policy of liability insurance is required to provide primary residual liability insurance for any permissive user. M.C.L. § 500.3101(1); M.S.A. § 24.13101(1) and M.C.L. § 257.520(b)(2); M.S.A. § 9.2220(b)(2).
The next issue is whether the State Farm policy provides coverage for the accident. State Farm argues that both State Farm and Enterprise are primary insurers with conflicting "excess" or "escape" clauses and, therefore, that each is required to pay a pro-rata share. Enterprise argues that Teasley signed an agreement stating that her personal automobile insurance contract would provide coverage for the rented vehicle.
State Farm's policy contains an "other insurance" clause, 1 which provides that if a temporary substitute car has other vehicle liability coverage on it, State Farm's coverage is excess. As we have seen, Enterprise's rental agreement also provides that its coverage is excess.
When there are two competing policies, each containing an excess clause, each of which would have provided coverage had the other policy not existed, liability should be prorated according to the policies' limits. Nat'l. Indemnity Co. v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 195 Mich.App. 186, 489 N.W.2d 175 (1992).
Accordingly, we reverse the court's order of summary disposition in favor of State Farm. We remand for calculation of the proper pro-rata liability of each party and entry of an order consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
v.
September 30, 1993
Before: WEAVER, P.J., and MURPHY and JANSEN, JJ.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately because I do not share the majority's disagreement with State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Snappy Car Rental, Inc., 196 Mich.App. 143, 492 N.W.2d 500 (1992).
In Snappy Car Rental, the defendant car rental company was self-insured. A provision in the defendant's car rental agreement permitted the person renting the car to opt to provide primary residual liability insurance. The plaintiff in that case contended that the provision in the defendant's car rental contract was void because the effect of the provision was to shift the responsibility of providing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Enterprise Leasing Co.
...payment of liability benefits resulting from damages caused by the driver of a rented car. In State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 206 Mich.App. 7, 520 N.W.2d 663 (1994), State Farm insured Ladonna Teasley under a personal automobile insurance policy. When her vehi......
-
State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Enterprise Leasing Co.
...Leasing Company NOS. 100032, 100033. COA Nos. 150077, 168790. Supreme Court of Michigan. September 22, 1995 Prior Report: 206 Mich.App. 7, 520 N.W.2d 663. Disposition: Leave to appeal was held in abeyance pending the decision in Citizens Insurance Company of America v. Federated Mutual Ins ......
-
Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Sako, Docket Nos. 160363
...has properly contracted to be responsible only for coverage in excess of that provided by the renter, the excess coverage provided by Enterprise is not similar to the primary coverage provided by State Farm to Sako while he was using the temporary substitute car. Therefore, State Farm's exc......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Enterprise Leasing Co.
...Leasing Company NOS. 100032, 100033. COA Nos. 150077, 168790. Supreme Court of Michigan December 28, 1994 Prior Report: 206 Mich.App. 7, 520 N.W.2d 663. Disposition: Leave to appeal is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the cases of Citizens Insurance Company of America v. Fede......