This matter is again before us, following a remand to the trial court by the Supreme Court. We addressed this case in
Enterprise Leasing Co v Sako,
The facts of this case are set out in those prior opinions. Briefly, defendant Majid Sako rented an automobile from plaintiff Enterprise Leasing Com *283 pany of Detroit and became involved in an automobile accident. Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is Sako’s no-fault automobile insurance carrier, while Enterprise is self-insured, with plaintiff Travelers Insurance Company being Enterprise’s excess carrier for claims over $500,000. As a result of the accident, lawsuits were brought against Enteiprise. Those suits were settled by Enterprise and Travelers for $593,321.79 and they commenced this action against Sako and State Farm, seeking both indemnification and primary coverage by State Farm.
Following the remand by the Supreme Court, the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendants, concluding that Enterprise could not limit the amount of its liability and also rejecting Enterprise’s indemnity claim against Sako. It is those rulings that are now before this Court.
We first consider whether State Farm is directly liable for payment of a portion of the judgment. In the State Farm policy, State Farm provided coverage for Sako for use of a temporary substitute automobile. That coverage, however, was specifically restricted to being excess coverage and not primary coverage. At issue is the amount at which State Farm’s excess coverage becomes applicable.
Plaintiffs argue that, because the financial responsibility act only requires insurance with minimum limits of $20,000/$40,000, Enteiprise was responsible as a self-insurer only for the first $40,000 of claims by the multiple plaintiffs in the underlying action and that anything over $40,000 is excess and, therefore, State Farm’s excess coverage becomes applicable at that point. In other words, Enterprise would be liable for *284 the first $40,000 as a self-insurer, State Farm would be responsible for the next $50,000 (the policy limits) as the excess carrier, and then Enteiprise would be liable in tort for the amounts over $90,000 as the owner of the vehicle, subject to its indemnity claim against Sako and, of course, the coverage by Travelers for amounts over $500,000. We do not agree with plaintiffs’ argument.
Plaintiffs’ argument is based on the premise that a self-insurer’s responsibility is limited to the minimum coverage required by law, or $20,000 for each person and $40,000 for each occurrence. We disagree. In Michigan, a certificate of self-insurance issued by the Secretary of State is the functional equivalent of a commercial policy of insurance with respect to the no-fault act, MCL 500.3009; MSA 24.13009, and the financial responsibility act, MCL 257.520(b); MSA 9.2220(b).
Allstate Ins Co v Elassal,
We are convinced that, when a car rental company enjoys the advantages of self-insurance, it cannot *285 attempt to limit its risks by asserting that its responsibility is limited to the minimum coverage requirements of the no-fault or financial responsibility acts. Consequently, Enterprise is hable for the full amount of the settlement. Moreover, because State Farm’s coverage was excess to any other insurance, and because Enterprise’s self-insurance was not limitéd to the statutory minimum, State Farm is not directly hable for any portion of the settlement. 2
We now turn to the second issue raised, namely, whether Sako is liable for any portion of the settlement under an indemnification claim. However, in hght of our resolution of the first issue, and a concession made by plaintiffs in their brief on the second issue, the indemnification issue may now be deemed abandoned. In their brief on appeal, plaintiffs, in footnote 12, concede that indemnity does not apply to the first $40,000 because the Supreme Court’s decision in this case makes Enteiprise first in priority with respect to the amount of primary residual liability coverage. However, as resolved in the first issue, the limit of Enterprise’s primary liability is not $40,000 as Enterprise argues, but is the full value of their assets. Therefore, the import of plaintiffs’ concession is that indemnity does not apply to that higher amount of primary liability, i.e., the full value of Enterprise’s assets. Accordingly, in light of this discussion, we decline to address the merits of the indemnity issue.
Affirmed. Defendants may tax costs.
Notes
We note that, after the accident involved in the case at bar, the owner liability statute was amended to limit the liability of a vehicle lessor. MCL 257.401; MSA 9.2101.
We are assuming that Enteiprise is sufficiently solvent to pay the settlement in this case. Because we hold that, as a self-insurer, Enteiprise is liable to the full value of its assets, that in essence represents the “policy limits” of its self-insurance. Therefore, State Farm’s excess coverage would be excess to that amount. Accordingly, if Enteiprise were insolvent, State Farm’s coverage would apply to the amount above which Enterprise was able to pay.