Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Curl

Michigan Court of Appeals

Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Curl

266 N.W.2d 479, 82 Mich. App. 140, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2204

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 21, 1978

DocketDocket 77-578

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 266 N.W.2d 479 (Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Curl) 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

Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Curl, 266 N.W.2d 479, 82 Mich. App. 140, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2204 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On March 22, 1975, Russell Curl was a passenger on a motorcycle owned and operated by Ronald Priebe, Jr. Priebe’s motorcycle was struck from the rear by an automobile owned and operated by Glyndon McDaniel, an uninsured motorist. As a result of the accident, Russell Curl was killed.

On the date of the collision, Curl resided with his parents who were insured by the plaintiff under two separate policies of automobile insurance, both of which provided uninsured motorist coverage. Additionally, the plaintiff issued a policy of insurance providing uninsured motorist coverage to Craig Cummins, a relative of Curl residing in the home of Curl and his parents. All three policies of insurance were identical and each provided $20,000/$40,000 uninsured motorist coverage.

On August 17, 1976, plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaratory relief on the question of whether the uninsured motorist coverage of the three policies of insurance could be stacked so as to allow $60,-000/$120,000 uninsured motorist coverage. Plaintiff argued in the negative. In response to this suit, defendant moved for summary judgment claiming that as a matter of law stacking of uninsured motorist benefits is proper. On January 25, 1977, the circuit court denied defendant’s motion and ruled that stacking could not be allowed. Defendant appeals.

We first concern ourselves with the question of whether the Cummins’ policy could be stacked, were we to allow stacking, as a general rule. We *142 hold it can not. Defendant makes no argument which convinces us that it is somehow "proper as a matter of law” to subject plaintiff-insurer to potentially unlimited liability as to Cummins’ policy under these circumstances. Furthermore, the rationale supporting the disposition of the other policies is inapposite to Cummins.

On the other hand, the policies owned by decedent’s parents may be stacked for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Kozak v Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, 79 Mich App 777; 262 NW2d 904 (1977). Therefore, we reverse the circuit court’s determination as to those two policies and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part. No costs, neither side having prevailed in full.

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

Per Curiam.

On March 22, 1975, Russell Curl was a passenger on a motorcycle owned and operated by Ronald Priebe, Jr. Priebe’s motorcycle was struck from the rear by an automobile owned and operated by Glyndon McDaniel, an uninsured motorist. As a result of the accident, Russell Curl was killed.

On the date of the collision, Curl resided with his parents who were insured by the plaintiff under two separate policies of automobile insurance, both of which provided uninsured motorist coverage. Additionally, the plaintiff issued a policy of insurance providing uninsured motorist coverage to Craig Cummins, a relative of Curl residing in the home of Curl and his parents. All three policies of insurance were identical and each provided $20,000/$40,000 uninsured motorist coverage.

On August 17, 1976, plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaratory relief on the question of whether the uninsured motorist coverage of the three policies of insurance could be stacked so as to allow $60,-000/$120,000 uninsured motorist coverage. Plaintiff argued in the negative. In response to this suit, defendant moved for summary judgment claiming that as a matter of law stacking of uninsured motorist benefits is proper. On January 25, 1977, the circuit court denied defendant’s motion and ruled that stacking could not be allowed. Defendant appeals.

We first concern ourselves with the question of whether the Cummins’ policy could be stacked, were we to allow stacking, as a general rule. We *142 hold it can not. Defendant makes no argument which convinces us that it is somehow "proper as a matter of law” to subject plaintiff-insurer to potentially unlimited liability as to Cummins’ policy under these circumstances. Furthermore, the rationale supporting the disposition of the other policies is inapposite to Cummins.

On the other hand, the policies owned by decedent’s parents may be stacked for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Kozak v Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, 79 Mich App 777; 262 NW2d 904 (1977). Therefore, we reverse the circuit court’s determination as to those two policies and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part. No costs, neither side having prevailed in full.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 N.W.2d 479, 82 Mich. App. 140, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/detroit-automobile-inter-insurance-exchange-v-curl-michctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack