Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp.

195 N.W.2d 893, 38 Mich. App. 260, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1584

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 1972

DocketDocket 10716

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 195 N.W.2d 893 (Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp., 195 N.W.2d 893, 38 Mich. App. 260, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1584 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum Opinion.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the “physical contact” provision of her automobile insurance policy, which requires that there must be physical contact with an unidentified vehicle before the insurer becomes liable under said provision, is void as against public policy. Plaintiff relies on MCLA 257.1112; MSA 9.2812 in support of her contention.

In 1968, the Legislature amended MCLA 257.1112; MSA 9.2812; its amended form states that as a condition precedent to recovery from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund in a case involving injuries caused by an unidentified motorist, the plaintiff must establish that there was “physical contact by the unidentified vehicle *261 with the plaintiff or with a vehicle occupied by the plaintiff”. MCLA 257.1112; MSA 9.2812. The action of the Legislature in adopting this provision clearly establishes that such provisions are not contrary to the public policy of this state.

Furthermore, the question raised herein by plaintiff was considered by this Court in Citizens Mutual Insurance Co v Jenks, 37 Mich App 378 (1971), and plaintiff’s contentions were rejected there. That ease controls and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Costs to defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum Opinion.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the “physical contact” provision of her automobile insurance policy, which requires that there must be physical contact with an unidentified vehicle before the insurer becomes liable under said provision, is void as against public policy. Plaintiff relies on MCLA 257.1112; MSA 9.2812 in support of her contention.

In 1968, the Legislature amended MCLA 257.1112; MSA 9.2812; its amended form states that as a condition precedent to recovery from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund in a case involving injuries caused by an unidentified motorist, the plaintiff must establish that there was “physical contact by the unidentified vehicle *261 with the plaintiff or with a vehicle occupied by the plaintiff”. MCLA 257.1112; MSA 9.2812. The action of the Legislature in adopting this provision clearly establishes that such provisions are not contrary to the public policy of this state.

Furthermore, the question raised herein by plaintiff was considered by this Court in Citizens Mutual Insurance Co v Jenks, 37 Mich App 378 (1971), and plaintiff’s contentions were rejected there. That ease controls and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Costs to defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 N.W.2d 893, 38 Mich. App. 260, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basilla-v-aetna-insurance-corp-michctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack