Frankenmuth Insurance Company v. Poll
311 Mich. App. 442
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Frankenmuth insured a Caledonia, MI home and paid Gabbert $108,260.42 for damages from Poll’s vehicle crash into the home.
- Citizens/Hanover insured Heubel’s Lincoln and issued a named-driver exclusion naming Poll as excluded.
- The exclusion warned that when a named excluded driver operates the vehicle, all liability coverage is void and the vehicle is uninsured under the no-fault statute.
- Poll drove the Lincoln in September 2011, lost control, and caused the damage at Gabbert’s home.
- Frankenmuth filed a subrogation action seeking recovery from Citizens/Hanover and from Heubel and Poll; the trial court granted summary disposition for Citizens/Hanover and Frankenmuth sought reconsideration.
- The appeal raises whether the named-driver exclusion precludes Citizens/Hanover’s liability for property damage and whether the exclusion conflicts with public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the named-driver exclusion void coverage for property damage when the excluded driver operates the vehicle? | Frankenmuth argues Turner applies and exclusion doesn’t void property-damage liability. | Citizens/Hanover argues exclusion voids coverage when excluded driver operates the vehicle. | Exclusion voids coverage; Citizens/Hanover not liable. |
| Is the named-driver exclusion void as against public policy? | Frankenmuth contends exclusion conflicts with public policy. | Exclusion is authorized by statute and not against public policy. | Exclusion not void; valid under statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 448 Mich 22 (1995) (test for liability under Turner applies to property-damage benefits when ownership/operation of vehicle involved)
- Bronson Methodist Hosp v Mich Assigned Claims Facility, 298 Mich App 192 (2012) (interprets MCL 500.3009(2) and its effect on coverage)
- Farmers Ins Exch v Kurzmann, 257 Mich App 412 (2003) (policy language must fairly lead to one interpretation and not contravene public policy)
- Progressive Mich Ins Co v Smith, 490 Mich 977 (2011) (discussion of MCL 500.3009(2) and exclusions)
- Auto-Owners Ins Co v Martin, 284 Mich App 427 (2009) (public policy analysis of policy provisions conflicting with statutes)