Plаintiff, Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange (DAIIE), appeals of right a December 5, 1978, lower court order holding a clause in the no-fault auto insurance policy under which defendant David Irvine was insured by plaintiff to be invalid and unenforceable as аgainst public policy. We affirm.
On June 20, 1976, 14-year-old David Anderson was injured when struck by an automobile being driven by defendant. At the time of the аccident defendant was driving his car in an "auto-cross” *373 race that was sponsored by the Jackson Small Car Club, Inc., and that was bеing held on a local public high school parking lot in Jackson, Michigan.
The object of the race was to test the driving skills of рarticipants by having them maneuver their automobiles around pylons that were arranged in a particular manner on the school parking lot. Drivers attempted to execute the course without leaving it or striking any of the pylons. During his attempt, defendant lost control of his vehicle, left the race course and struck Anderson. Anderson was pinned against another vehicle and suffered serious injuries requiring the amputation of part of his right leg.
Through his next friend, Janene Henley, Anderson filed suit against the Jackson Small Car Club, the Jackson public school district and defendant Irvine. Subsequently, on May 19, 1977, DAIIE filed the instant action for declaratory judgment sеeking a declaration that the insurance policy under which defendant was insured was not in effect at the time of the aсcident. The basis for this contention was a provision in the policy that excluded coverage "to any automobile whilе operated in any prearranged race or speed contest”.
Anderson sought, and was granted, permission to intervеne in the declaratory judgment action. Anderson argued that the exclusionary clause was invalid and unenforceable bеcause it violated both public policy and the no-fault act. The lower court agreed with Anderson and entered judgment accordingly.
We think it clear that the Legislature intends that automobile insurance policies conform to the dictates оf the no-fault act. Where an insurance policy contains an exclusionary clause that was
*374
not contemplatеd by the Legislature, that clause is invalid and unenforceable.
Community Service Ins Co v Shears,
While no prior case has addressed the permissibility of the exclusionary clause before us here, in
DeFrain, id.,
this Court held that a household exclusionary clause in an automobile insurance pоlicy was invalid and unenforceable. In reaching this result, the Court noted that even though the no-fault act partially abolished tоrt remedies, it retained residual liability in some circumstances. See, MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135. Upon examining applicable statutes to determine the situations under which the Legislature authorized exclusionary clauses, the Court found that neither MCL 500.3009(2); MSA 24.13009(2), which permits exclusion of coverage when a vehicle is operated by a named person, nor MCL 257.520(b)(2); MSA 9.2220(b)(2), which allows exclusion where a named persоn operates the motor vehicle and the exclusion is authorized by the insured, provided approval of a househоld exclusionary clause. Thus, finding no statutory support for the clause the Court held it to be void as against public policy. Other Miсhigan appellate cases addressing the validity of identical clauses have reached the same result. See,
Community Service Ins Co v Shears, supra, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co v Traycik (After Remand),
Similarly, in
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co v Sivey,
"Shall insure the person named therein and any other pеrson, as insured, using any such motor vehicle or motor vehicles with the express or implied permission of such named insured, against lоss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such motor vehicle or motor vehicles.”
After quoting from Judge (now Justice) Levin’s dissent in
Weisberg v Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance
Exchange,
"Such motor vehicle liability policy need not insure any liability under any workmen’s compensation law nor any liability оn account of bodily injury to or death of an employee of the insured while engaged in the employment, other than domestic, of the insured, or while engaged in the operation, maintenance or repair of any such motor vehicle nor any liability for damage to property owned by, rented to, in charge of, or transported by the insured.”
Having highlighted this exception as the only one clearly authorized by the Legislature, the Supreme Court relied upon the general maxim of
*376
statutory construction that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of other similar things,
Stowers v Wolodzko,
We find the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Sivey to be persuasive. Defendant has pointed out no legislative authorization for the еxclusionary clause that it seeks to use to avoid its liability and our examination of the applicable statutes disclosеs none. Thus, because the effect of the exclusionary clause’s operation would be to limit the coverage rеquired by the motor vehicle financial responsibility law, the clause is against public policy and void.
DAIIE also argues in this appeal that the no-fault statute has no application in this case because the accident occurred on рrivate property and not on a public highway. We hold this claim to be without merit. Defendant Irvine was driving a motor vehicle "designed for operation upon a public highway” at the time of the accident. MCL 500.3101(2); MSA 24.13101(2). The fact that the accident occurrеd on private property and not on a public highway is irrelevant for the purpose of the no-fault act’s applicability.
Affirmed. No costs, a public question being involved.