*1 Cunninghаm v 471 Citizens Ins 1984] CUNNINGHAM v CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA v CUNNINGHAM AUTO-OWNERSINSURANCE COMPANY 70392, 4, 1984, January 70573.
Docket Nos. Submitted at Grand 2, 1984. Rapids. April appeal applied Leave to for. Decided Plaintiff, Cunningham, Gary brought L. actions in the Kalamazoo injury Circuit Court after he received an in an automobile action, 70392, Appeals accident. In one Court of Docket No. plaintiff sought no-fault insurance benefits from defendant America, Company Citizens Insurance the insurer of his vehicle, and also certain other benefits from defendant Aetna Company pursuant group Life Insurance to a health insurance plan fully by plaintiffs employer self-funded and administered pursuant Aetna to an administrative service contract. Citi- contending plaintiffs policy zens resisted the claim plaintiff void ab initio and that the was not insured due his intentional falsification of information in his day insurance. Citizens discovered such falsification one after plaintiffs accident. Plaintiffs insurance binder was effective action, days Appeals before the accident. In another Court of 70573, plaintiff alleged Docket No. that if rescission ab initio on with Citizens is allowed then he is entitled to benefits Company, from defendant Auto-Owners Insurance as the servic- ing assigned court, facility. carrier for the claims The circuit Mullen, J., brought by plain- C. H. consolidated the actions tiff. In summary Docket No. 70392 the moved fоr judgment against granted plaintiffs Citizens. The trial court appeals judgment motion. Citizens from the and order to that summary In Docket No. 70573 moved for a Auto-Owners _effect. [1, 2, 4, [3, 7, [6] [5] Validity Compulsory, 73 Am Jur 7 Am Jur 42 ALR3d 229. insurance. 83 ALR2d 1104. 9-12] 7 Am Jur and construction of "no-fault” automobile insurance 7 Am Jur 2d, 2d, financial References Automobile Insurance Summary Judgment 2d, Automobile 2d, responsibility, Automobile for Points in Headnotes Insurance §§ §§ 26, 340, assigned §§ 27. 35, §§ 356. 36-38, risk automobile 45 et plans. seq. granted Plain- motion. judgment. Auto-Owners’ The trial court judgment entered for Auto-Owners. appeals from the final tiff appeals Appeals for its considera- consolidated The Court Held: tion. preclude not Citizens from insurance act doеs no-fault 1. The *2 policy rescinding plaintiff’s ab initio as so that is void policy. procurement plaintiff’s perjury of the in the result of of the no-fault insurance act 3220 and 3224 2. Sections insurance, liability only of automobile the cancellation address only a limitation on as Those sections serve not its rescission. applicants. Section policies to honest issued cancellation the vitality recognizes continuing of common- impliedly the law rescission. circumstances, wrongdoer, plaintiff, must the Under the consequences of Plaintiff’s fraud was his actions. suffer the reasonably timely Citizens did not fashion. discovered in delay plaintiff notifying to resсind unjustifiably of its decision policy. the policy plaintiff’s permissibly insurance rescinded 4. Citizens
ab initio. permitted plaintiff’s deception the Citizens to rescind 5. Since right policy to collect no-fault initio as his ab against assigned facility benefits, plaintiff’s the claims claim 3113(b) (Auto-Owners) of the no-fault insur- § must fail under ance act. judgment No. 70392 is reversed and the in Docket
judgment in Docket No. 70573 affirmed. J., in Docket No. dissented from the reversal V. to rescind a is his belief that to allow an insurer 70392. It policy run ab initio would of automobile contrary policy insurance act and of the no-fault the stated incompatible compulsory nature the act. would be with Appеals panel has of the Court He noted that another argument are rejected 3224 of act §§ they inapplicable rescis- relate to and not since cancellations ab He that the facts indicate sion initio. would conclude driving plaintiff’s opportunity rec- had an to discover policy neglected promptly. ord but to do so He noted requested granting implications the relief of not person many very cases a and that it is conceivable that in misrepresentation on an insurance would make an innocent coverage. deny application On the used to him which could be policy insurance schеme behind our basis of "persons tragedy due to the who suffer loss Cunningham Ins Co v Citizens this state shall have a source and a means of accidents in considerations, along recovery”, the other he would affirm with summary judgment in Docket No. 70392.
Opinion of the Court — — — No-Fault Insurance Rescission 1. Insurance Automobiles Perjury. — preclude an act does not insurer from The no-fault insurance rescinding policy so that it is void ab initio where an insurance procured of the insured’s deliberate as a result falsification of information and intentional reasonably discovered in a for insurance and such fraud was unjustifiably delay timely the insurer did not manner and (MCL notifying insured of its deсision to rescind 500.3101et seq.; seq.). MSA 24.13101 et — — — Automobiles 2. Insurance No-Fault Cancella- — — Law. tion Rescission Common provisions regarding cancellation of a The no-fault insurance do not address the rescission of a of insurance only cancellation of serve as a limitation on the applicants; policies to honest section of the act issued *3 recognizes continuing validity impliedly the of common-law 24.13224). (MCL 500.3220, 24.13220, 500.3224;MSA rescission — — No-Fault 3. Insurance Insurance. Automobiles provides person that a is not entitled The no-fault insurance act protection personal insurance benefits to collect registrant assigned facility is owner or of a claims if he resulting in the which is involved in the accident motor vehicle required possess the no-fault claim for benefits if he does not (MCL 500.3113[b]; coverage MSA automobile insurance 24.13113[b]). — — — 4. Insurance Rescission. Automobiles No-Fault Insurance personal protection pursuant to A claimant for insurance benefits benefits from an the no-fault act is not entitled to receive assigned company servicing insurance as the carrier for the facility where it is determined that the claimant’s claims properly of on his vehicle was no-fault automobile insurance right personal to collect no-fault rescinded ab initio as to his possess required no-fault benefits and therefore he did not coverage vehicle at the time automobile insurance on his (MCL 500.3113[b]; accident which resulted in his claim occurred 24.13113[b]). MSA 133 V. J. Judgment — — Judgments Summary — of Material Fact Issues 5. Rules. Court ground only granted Summary judgment on the should any genuine to material fact where there is is no issue as there issue; genuine court must be satisSed it is no such supported at impossible or defense to be trial for the claim (GCR deñciency which be overcome cannot because some 1963,117.2[3]). Compul- — — — No-Fault Insurance 6. Automobiles Insurance sory Insurance. Michigan’s act automobile insurance is no-fault statute, compensa- purpose of to which is ensure insurance (MCL persons injured in automobile accidents 500.3101 tion to seq.; seq.). MSA 24.13101 et et — — 7. No-Fault Insurance. Insurance Automobiles requires act the owner or no-fault automobile insurance The security, usually registrant a motor maintain vehicle insurance, protec- payment personal for form of of beneñts insurance; of a which is not tion owner vehicle insured protec- pursuant recover the act not entitled to to (MCL 500.3101[1], beneñts under the act tion insurance 24.13101[1],24.13113[b]). 500.3113[b];MSA — — — Insurance 8. Automobiles No-Fault Failure Insurance Insure. highway operation upon public The of a motor vehicle security payment which there is not for the vehicle maintained pursuant personal protection to the no- of beneñts of misdemeanor, fault automobile insurance act constitutes a (MCL imprisonment 500.3102[2]; punishable by ñne and/or 24.13102[2]). — — — Termina- Automobiles No-Fault Insurance — Notice. tion provisions dealing Insurance Code with the termination coverage insurance act under the no-fault automobile protection prohibit terminating personal injury an insurer from (MCL 500.3220, prior giving prospective notice insured to its 24.13224). *4 500.3224; 24.132220, MSA — — — 10. Insurance Automobiles Insurance Termina- No-Fault Ab tion Initio. policy Termination ab initio of a no-fault Cunningham v contrary statutory purpose runs requiring that notice given policy before a could be terminated in order to allow opportunity an insurance; insured an to obtain other termina- contrary tion statutory purpose ab initio runs to such as it leaves the insured without insurance from the time he obtained policy person his initial and doesn’t allow that a reasonable period insurance; to obtain other rescission ab initio is not a remedy Michigan’s available to insurers under (MCL500.3224[3]; 24.13224[3]). insurance scheme MSA — — — 11. Insurance Automobiles No-Fault Insurance Cancel- — lation Ab Rescission Initio. provisions regarding The no-fault insurance cancellation of a policy apply of insurance to аn insurer’s assertion that a (MCL may 500.3220, 500.3224; be rescinded ab initio 24.13224). 24.13220, — — Misrepre- — 12. Insurance Automobiles No-Fault — Policy. sentations Insured Public person misrepresentations A who makes on an for no- may fault automobile insurance be allowed to recover beneñts under the which misrep- he has obtained those resentations in the furtherance of the behind the com- pulsory "persons insurance scheme that who suffer loss due to tragedy of automobile accidents in this state shall have a recovery”. source and means Oudsema, William R. plaintiff.
Lilly, Domeny Jeffrey Durant, & P.C. (by E. Lilly), Dykema, Gwillim and Terrence J. Gos- Spencer, sett, Trigg Goodnow & (by Robert H. Barr), Gorlin and Richard A. for Citizens Insur- ance Cоmpany of America. Geary), Howard,
Howard & P.C. (by James H. for Auto-Owners Insurance Company. Early, Lennon, Peters & Crocker John T. (by Jr.),
Peters, for Aetna Life Insurance Company. *5 133 Mich Opinion of the Court P.J., Burns, and V. J. Brennan B.R.
Before: Kallman,* JJ. T. and J. in Kallman, filed action J. Plaintiff his
J. T. County Cir- 70392 in the Kalamazoo Docket No. benefits. Court, seeking no-fault cuit of America resisted Company Citizens was not cov- claim, contending plaintiff that Plaintiff no-fault insurance. ered pursuant GCR summary judgment moved (3). (1), (2), hearing, After a 1963, 117.2, subds motion under plaintiffs granted the trial court 117.2(3). as of 1963, appeals Citizens now GCR right. 1981, case, September in this in plaintiff
The his applica falsified intentionally deliberately Jim Madden Associ tion for insurance he ates, Inc., whether Citizens.1 When asked with driving of drunk within hаd been convicted "no”, although answered years, plaintiff last five March, had, fact, in he been so convicted agent issued a binder independent The insur application. based on this fraudulent into investigation routine company began ance its 5, 1981, Citi record. On plaintiffs driving October falsely lied and had zens had plaintiff discovered driving of his record in sworn the truth application. oc-
Plaintiff was in an accident which injured 4, 1981, Citizens day curred on October one before had It was too knowledge plaintiffs wrongdoing. effective late to undo accident. The binder was * Appeals by assignment. judge, sitting Circuit on Court many very cases 1The dissent claims it is conceivable person might misrepresentation on an insurance make an innocent deny coverage of an acci which could him in the event misrepresentation not the Court dent. The issue of innocent at before hypothetical issue time. We decline to address the raised the dissent. Cunningham v Citizens Opinion of the Court 11, 1981, or 24 before days September on 22, 1981, notified October accident. On returned rescinding policy, his it was pay it would not and stated that premiums, him no-fault benefits. in- seriously been parties third
Had innocent
vehicle, we
plaintiff’s
with
in a collision
jured
to hold
compel us
would
public policy
believe
*6
existed,
for
at least
the аccident
coverage for
that
Farm Mutual Auto-
See State
parties.
third
these
568; 242
App
67 Mich
Kurylowicz,
Ins Co v
mobile
(1976). In
lv den
(1976),
To
protec-
company will result
in
an insurance
bind
being
indus-
the insurance
taken
tive measures
try.
accepted,
argument
plaintiffs
can
is
one
If
longer
agents
day
readily
nowill
when
foresee
companies they
by the
issue binders
allowed to
be
applies
represent.
have
will
who
One
approval
acceptance and
is
final
wait until
to
may take
office. This
from
home
received
obey the
that those who
We
not believe
weeks.
do
dealings
their
should
and are honest
law
consequences
of a
because
to suffer adverse
forced
pro-
wrongdoers’
Public
fraudulent acts.
few
right;
not be
the courts need
those who do
tects
attempt
persons
overly
who
of those
solicitous
relationships.
perpetrate
fraud
their contractual
provision
agree
any
no-
in the
do not
We
seq.;
act,
MSA 24.13101 et
500.3101 et
fault
rescinding plaintiff’s
precludes
seq.,
Citizens from
500.3220;
void
initio. MCL
so that
ab
500.3224; MSA 24.13224
24.13220 and MCL
right
plaintiff argues
bar Citizens’
which
act to
only
initio,
the can-
rescind the
ab
address
*7
coverage,
fraudulently
the
but not as
insured
who has
obtained
See, e.g.,
parties.
Farm Mutual Automobile
to innocent third
State
(1966).
Wall,
92;
Super
92
222
282
The ALR annotation
Co v
cited
NJ
A2d
by
scope
in
insurer who
the
policy
is limited
its
to whether an
dissent
mandating compulsory
can avoid
insurance
issues a
coverage
in a state
parties by rescinding
policy.
not collect
to third
the
It does
right
discussing
cases
insurer’s
the insured.
vis-á-vis
574,
p
Kurylowicz, supra,
read as
To the
can be
extent
that
standing
premise
injury
damage
that
or
an automobile
after
absolute,
specifically disagree
it.
with
insurance
becomes
decisions
we
jurisdic-
pre-no-fault
Both
from
and decisions from
this state
coverage
allow an
which do
mandate
insurance
tions
insurer
еven where this affects the
not
liability policy
to
an
rescind ab initio
Pace,
rights
Keys
parties.
v
See
of third
(1959). See, also,
alia,
74;
Fireman’s
358 Mich
This in which the insurer is not case plaintiff ably notifying delayed its decision to already policy. Here, the had rescind accident plaintiffs learned occurred before Citizens fraud, in a reason- this fraud was discovered ably timely circumstances, fashion. Under these plaintiff, wrongdoer, the conse- must suffer the quences actions. of his permissibly re- we hold that Citizens
Because plaintiffs initio, we ab scinded turn issue in Docket No. 70573. raised argues There, that if ab initio is rescission allowed, to from Auto- then he is entitled benefits servicing Company, car- Owners rier as assigned facility. Pursuant for the claims 500.3113(b); 24.13113(b), person is not protection entitled to collect assigned facility if he benefits is the owner or claims
registrаnt of a motor vehicle which not if he does is involved possess an accident and required no-fault automobile insurance decep- coverage. plaintiffs Since we conclude that permitted tion ab rescind personal right no-fault initio to his to collect as *9 Cunningham v Citizens Ins 481 V. J. J. by Brennan, Dissent benefits, against claim plaintiffs that we believe must fail under MCL assigned facility claims the 24.13113(b). 500.3113(b); MSA in 70392 is reversed Docket No. judment affirmed. in Docket No. is judgment Burns, P.J., B. concurred. R. Brennan, (dissenting). I respectfully J. J.
V. of Company Defendant Citizens dissent. grant reversal of the trial court’s America seeks plaintiff in under favor judgment a summary 117.2(3). under 1963, judgment Summary GCR 117.2(3) granted be where 1963, only should GCR any as to mаterial fact. genuine is issue there no it is impossible be satisfied that The court must trial supported at the claim or defense to be which cannot be over- deficiency because of some Kretschmer, 363, 372; 207 come. Rizzo v 389 Mich (1973). opinion It is was my NW2d 316 a motion for for the trial court to entertain proper as resolved summary question judgment of law and no factual question was strictly dispute existed.
The crux of the instant
case
whether
plaintiff
in his
misrepresentation
application
justify
for automobile insurance will
determina-
tion that
was void
his
ab initio. This Court has
thrice
considered
issue
factual
situations
similar
State Farm Mutual Automobile
case at
In
bar.
Co v
568;
67 Mich
242 NW2d
Kurylowicz,
App
(a
lv den
while for automobile had defendant indicated that his driver’s license during not been at time suspended any revoked fact, the five In preceding application. years 133 V. J. during period, five-year the defendant’s license suspended for one month. After had been policy, issued defendant’s defendant was involved person in an automobile accident in which one persons injured. other killed and five were Two later, defendant months was involved another August 23, 1971, accident. On State Farm declared May 10, a resсission of the retroactive to grounds alleging 1971, as the defendant had misrepresented material facts in his concerning previous suspension revocation or p examining Id., license. 570. After his driver’s public policy regulating the statutes auto- behind *10 liability Michigan in mobile insurance and similar jurisdictions, in Court cases other the held that misrepresentation the prevent of an insured would not against
recovery by par- the insurer third injured by p Id., ties who had been the insured. 578. The Court also held that where an automobile premiums, insurer retains notwithstand- ing grounds reasonably for cancellation discovera- during by 55-day statutory ble the insurer the period prescribed by as the in statute effect at the time, 500.3220; 24.13220, the insurer estopped grounds will be to assert that for rescis- p Id., sion exist thereafter. Kurylowicz
The Court’s decision in was followed Latham, in Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co v (1981). App 66; In NW2d 329 Franken- misrepresentations muth, defendant made in his repre- He automobile insurance. any suspension sented that he was not under driving privileges any revocation in in Ohio or other state. driving had This was not the case as Latham have been mate-
infractions which would rial to Frankenmuth’s decision to issue insurance coverage. Approximately and months two one-half Cunningham v by V. J. issued, was an automobile owned the
after injured Latham struck and operatеd by and Court, found citing Kurylowicz, pedestrian. held that the correctly the trial court at time of the and in full force effect accident. Ins Co v Mutual Automobile
In State Farm
(1973),
Allen,
71;
Michigan’s "no-fault so-called statute, purpose in- persons is to compensation which ensure Aetna Life & jured in automobile accidents. Hill v Co, 725, Casualty 728; 263 79 Mich NW2d *11 Co, (1977); Pollock v Mutual 79 Frankenmuth (1977). 218, 222; 554 This Mich 261 NW2d Court, expounding upon statutory purpose, this stated as follows: persons who suffer policy
"It is the of this state in this tragedy loss due to the of automobile accidents recovery. a of state shall have a source and means questionable policy a policy, it is whether Given ab liability can ever be held void insurance App 471 133 by Brennan, V.J. occurs. Gener- by policy injury covered initio after held that: ally, it is " respect to insur- liability of the insurer with 'The becomes absolute whenever required by the act ance * * * damage by policy such occurs covered injury or his behalf and by made the insured or on no statement no violation policy provisions may be used to of the Long, Liability policy.’ The Law defeat or avoid Insurance, 3.25, pp 3-83—3-84. See Detroit Automobile § App 94; Exchange Ayvazian, 62 Mich v Inter-Ins (1975).” supra, p Kurylowicz, NW2d question did not decide the While the Court insurance liability of automobile policy whether an injury held void ab initio after can ever be occurs, is in- its discussion cоvered on that issue. panel’s position structive as to that Further, para- second it should be noted that quoted graph passage quoted of the above Latham, supra. panel another approval by with allowing an insur- only appear Not does of automobile ance to rescind a company contrary run insurance ab initio would legisla- Michigan of the the stated tion, incompatible with appears it also to be act. nature of the no-fault of a registrant requires The act the owner in the usually security, motor vehicle maintain insurance, per- of benefits of payment form of insurance, 500.3101(1); MSA MCL protection sonal 24.13101(1). is not a vehicle which operation misdemeanor, punishable so insured constitutes 500.3102(2); imprisonment, fine and/or 24.13102(2). possible In crimi- addition which is not nal the owner of a vehicle charge, personal protec- to recover insured is not entitled 500.3113(b); MSA tion insurance benefits. MCL 24.13113(b). *12 Cunningham v Citizens Ins V.J. J. Brennan, Legislature cognizant of the Michigan
The hardships insurance scheme could coverage bring persons to bear on whose insurance for some reason. To amelio- was to be terminated hardships, Legislature provided rate these given before a could be policy notice must be 24.13224(3). 500.3224(3); terminated. purpose period of this notiсe is to allow an prior insured to obtain other insurance to the ab initio coverage. termination of his Termination statutory purpose runs to the as leaves contrary the insured without from the time he policy obtained his initial and does not allow that time to person a reasonable obtain other insur- ance. of the Insurance portions Other Code also initio rescission ab indicate that a remedy is not to insurers under the compulsory available insur- ance of this scheme state.
Examination of the portions the Insurance dealing Code with termination of insurance cover- age indicates the statutes were drafted in suсh a manner as to an insurer prohibit from terminating protection injury prior giving prospective notice to its insured. MCL 500.3220; MSA 24.13220 states as follows: Subject following provisions "Sec. 3220. to the no coverage, insurer after a is a of licensed to liability write automobile days policy policy has been in effect 55 if the or renewal, immediately, effective shall cancel a except any or following more of the reasons: "(a) during That days following the 55 the date of original issue unacceptable thereof the risk is insurer. "(b) any operator, That the named insured or other either resident of the same custom- household or who arily operates an automobile insured under during
has operator’s suspended had his license 133 Mich J. Dissent bv V. suspension has period revocation and the final.”
become *13 augmented the Code of This section by 500.3224; 24.13224 which states: MSA MCL (1) policy of The of a insur- cancellation
"Sec. in subdivi- 55-day period enumerated within the ance (a) subject appeal by not be to of section shall sion by any the cancellation Failure to disclose the insured. application for not be upon any insurance shall insured grounds by coverage on of fraud an deny the basis to accepted may have the risk thereafter. who insurer "(2) chapter only, this no cancel- provisions For of the a written notice of shall be effective unless lation mail, receipt by is mailed certified return cancellation requested, the known the at last address to to insured records, its the the insurer either agent sup- or as policy, wrote the records the who plied by the insured. "(3) prior days shall mailed at least 20 notice be purpose For the
to the effective date of cancellation. by the chapter delivery of notice only, such written mailing. The notice equivalent the insurer shall be and shall contain the reasons for the cancellation shall statutory has type in bold the insured state that mailing appeal tо days the date of right within 7 from department. approve shall The commissioner notice.” form of cancellation making ruling, court noted that In its the trial 24.13224(3) 500.3224(3); that mandates given shall shall cancellation and such notice days prior to the effective be mailed at least 20 to state date of cancellation. The court went on with that did cancel in accordance "Citizens not pol- requirements statutory therefore injury”. plaintiff’s icy inwas effect on the date of by plaintiff argues cited that the statutes they inapplicable judge since and the trial are Cunningham v Citizens Ins Co by V. J. relate to cancellations and not rescission ab initiо. argument has been rejected by This this Court. In 577-578, Kurylowicz, supra, pp the Court stated: argues Farm the statutes "State cited judge inapplicable trial the defendants are since they relate to cancellations and not rescission ab initio. hold, require a construction Such would that we effect, of quent may avoid although may an insurer not cancel liability on insurance based fraud subse- payment policy, of a claim under the treat the policy nevertheless as void ab initio and policy altogether. on the We do not think Legislature intended such an absurd conse- quence.”
Another factor which should be considered is that Citizens had thе information necessary *14 plaintiff’s driving obtain record for approximately prior 20 to the days accident. Citizens ordered plaintiff’s driving record approximately two weeks after receipt application. of the receiving After record, Citizens 5, did not review it until October 1981. This indicates that Citizens had opportu- an nity plaintiff’s to discover driving record but ne- glected to do so promptly.
It should be noted that other jurisdictions
have
held that an insurer may not rescind an automo-
bile insurance policy ab initio.
In Pearce v South-
Co,
ern Guaranty
33;
246 Ga
mately month after one acci- in an automobile was involved insured passenger he were killed in which dent the sonal per- occupants vehicle sustained of the other declaratory judgment injuries. for An action court, result of filed in the federal district appealed Court of to the United States which was Appeals Appeals The Federal the Fifth Circuit. for following question Su- the Georgia: Court certified preme Court Georgia Act date of No-Fault "After the effective Act, Georgia Laws (Georgia Reparations Vehicle Motor 56-34B), Ann, chap 1974, 113, seq., Ga can pp et Code providing basic third- an automobile pro- injury liability insurance and basic
party resident, benefits, Georgia to a be voided issued tection ab initio based misrepresentations made upon insurance, provided by as Ga Code application for 56-2409, Ann, giving rise an automobile accident after § loss?” 246 Ga 35. to a claimed Georgia Supreme response question, the In Court held providing that an automobile third-party insurance and basic (no-fault) protection personal injury benefits basic pursuant Georgia law be voided cannot issued retrospectively. See, also,
246 Ga 39. Anno: Rescis- misrepresentation, avoidance, or or for fraud sion assigned compulsory, responsibility, ñnancial Sentry 1104; insurance, 83 ALR2d risk Indemnity Sharif, 280 SE2d 828; v Ga Co aff’d 248 Ga (1981). (1980), 395; 282 SE2d 907 core, turns on whether At its the instant case *15 appli- person misrepresentations on an who makes allowed cation automobile insurance should through policy he which to recover benefits has obtained misrepresentatiоns. those wrongdoer While the courts are loathe reward Cunningham v Brennan, V.J. wrongful acts, are sometimes such concerns for secondary grant- implications of not Though requested ing in the instant relief. intentionally is indication there case misled applying benefits, for the while the insurer person many very cases a conceivable it is misrepresentation on innocent make an would deny be used which could such an him coverage Further, accident. the event of an our behind it is the "persons due to the who suffer loss scheme tragedy in this state shall accidents of automobile Kurylow- recovery”. a means of a source and have supra, p the basis of icz, 574. On above, I would affirm stated has been what trial court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.