*1 767 1979] Farm State v Ruuska FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILEINSURANCE STATE COMPANY RUUSKA 7, 1978, Lansing. 78-820.Submitted December at Docket No. Decided 19, 1979. appeal applied Leave to June for. Carlson, car,' driving while her Gloria father Arvid Carlson’s motorcycle by a driven collided with Dale Ruuska. Gloria home, Carlson resided in her father’s and each of them owned by Farm an automobile insured State Mutual Automobile Gloria, Company. Insurance Ruuska sued and State Farm does dispute coverage policy under Arvid Carlson’s permission. However, driving car with his Gloria was his State brought declaratory judgment Farm an action for a to deter- mine or not it would be liable for amounts under whether judgment Gloria’s should the for Ruuska exceed the policy. as defendants in limits of Arvid’s Named the declara- Ruuska, Carlsons, judgment tory action were both and Kenneth Kemp, Marquette in the Ruuska suit. The a defendant Circuit Court, J., Quinnell, provision Edward A. held that a in Gloria which excludes Carlson’s where she is driving by a car not owned her but owned of her member pertinent provisions household is void under the of the no-fault appeals. act. State Farm Held: impliedly repealed insurance statute has not no-fault laws, responsibility financial which determine the extent of liability coverage required under the no-fault statute. Under laws, permissible the financial it is for an insurer provide liability coverage driving not to when the insured is particular automobile or class of automobiles other than the [1, 7, [2] [3] [4] [6] [8] [5] . ' Automobile Exclusion from "drive other cars” Exclusion from "drive other cars” What is a "non-owned” automobile within the 73 Am Jur Am Jur 7 Am Jur 44 73 Am Jur 43 Am Jur 7 Am Jur insurance used insurance used Am7 insured or member of his household. 86 ALR2d 937. insured or member of his household. 86 ALR2d 937. 2d, 2d, clause of an automobile Jur 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, References Automobile Insurance Automobile Insurance 107. Statutes Statutes 200. Insurance § 2d, Insurance Automobile Insurance of other automobile of other automobile insurance: § § 274. § 279. 1981. Points operator’s policies. provision liability policy. §§ § 4-7, 105, Headnotes owned, hired, owned, hired, §§ of automobile of automobile 106. 106. 88 ALR2d 995. 83 ALR2d 926. meaning regularly regularly of the However, case, owned the insured. automobiles exclusion is created a definition of a "non-owned vehicle” common, contrary ordinary meaning which is to the phrase and is not included within the list of exclusions in the *2 highlighted any way. policy nor Because the exclusion fails statute, required by to meet the standards it will not be enforced. Affirmed. Holbrook, P.J., by D. E. concurred in the result reached the However, majority. he would hold that the trial court was declaring
correct in the exclusion void on the basis of the act, provisions requires of the no-fault that in аddition to being a motor vehicle insured its owner is likewise insured against liability legally using residual whenever he or she is a Judge provi- motor vehicle. also would hold that the Holbrook only sion of the financial law which authorizes an person permissible exclusion for a named is exclusive as to Therefore, present exclusions. the exclusion involved in the case is void.
Opinion of the Court Liability — — — 1. Insurance Insurance Automobiles No-Fault — Statutes. registrant required of a motor vehicle The owner or is to main- security payment tain for of residual insurance bene- fits; nothing requires person in the no-fault insurance act a to ocсurring injuries have residual when (MCL 500.3101; driving that 24.13101). is another’s vehicle Liability — — — 2. Automobiles Insurance Exclusions Insurance — Statutes. governing provision responsibility act the of the financial indicates issuance of an owner’s implication liability coverage the need not be particular driving a or class of auto- insured when mobiles, therefore, automobile liability coverage to when exclusion valid, driving particular of vehicles is and an vehicle or class only provide liability for those owner’s need (MCL 9.2220[b]). 257.520[b]; cars owned the insured Surplusage. — — 3. Construction Statutes surplusage a statute is to be treated as if at all No possible. (cid:127)— — 4. Insurance Insurance Policies Construction. policies ordinary Insurance must be construed in accord with the Farm v Ruuska State therein, language and when popular used of the sense the in favor of construed must also be insurer drafted coverage. uphold in order insured — — Limitations. Policies Insurance 5. Insurance clearly express duty limitations in its An insurer has may given full effect. that those limitations in order Liability — — — Exclu- Insurance Automobiles 6. Insurance sions. is void an automobile An exclusion of a "non-owned created a definition where ordinary, commonly- in accord with which is not vehicle” highlighted by phrase meaning and which is of the used warning list of exclusions tyрe nor included or a boldface policy. provided in the Holbrook, D. E. Liability — — — Insurance Statutes. Automobiles 7. Insurance properly insured is likewise which is of an automobile An owner legally against he or she is when residual insured vehicle, ownership regardless using a motor 24.13135). (MCL 500.3131, 500.3135;MSA vehicle *3 Specifically Things — — Included. Statutes Construction 8. statutory inclusion of general that the rule of construction It is a thing by speciñc is not men- mention excludes that which a tioned. Liability — — — Exclusions Insurance Automobiles
9. Insurance — Statutes. provides the minimum for Insurance Code which A section of the liability coverage an automobile afforded in to be amounts upon exclu- policy which an forth the basis insurance and sets permissible exclu- may permissible as to is exclusive sion sions; an insurance under that statute who is to an insured excludes residual (MCL 500.3009; driving is invalid owned another a vehicle 24.13009). Trebilcock, Fraser, & DeGrand DeGrand and Foster, Davis & plaintiff. Stanley Lyons E. Karon Robins, and Davis & (by Wade) (McDonald Smith,
Terry counsel), & L. Dale Ruuska. for defendant 767 Opinion of the Court P.J., D. E. D. E. and Holbrook, Before: Hol- JJ. Jr., Cynar, brook, right as of from an
Cynar, appeals J. Plaintiff declaring void an entry summary judgment Carlson. issued Gloria that it entitled to summary Plaintiff contends was on the basis of the exclusion. judgment dispute. The relevant facts are not in In June of Gloria Carlson resided the household of Carlson, Arvid her father. Each of them owned an by plaintiff. automobile and each was insured 19, 1975, car, driving On June while her father’s a motorcycle Gloria Carlson collided with driven injuries Dale Ruuska. Ruuska sustained serious against and filed suit Gloria Carlson. Plaintiff does dispute coverage of Gloria under her Carlson driving father’s as his with policy, she was car his However, consent. it appeared the judg- ment might Ruuska exceed the limits on that plaintiff policy, sought a declaratory judgment determine its liability for residual amount under the policy issued to Gloria Carlson.
Gloria policy provides Carlson’s if she owns a motor vehicle liabil- policy, covered such with ity as is afforded respect to the owned motor vehicle is also vehicle, using permis- when non-owned "Ex- sion of the owner. Under section labeled clusions,” none of the to the apply exclusions present situation. In the definitional section of the *4 following: is the automobile, an "Non-Owned Automobile—means (1) unit, living quarters owned trailer or detachable State Farm Ruuska Opinion of the Court (2) (3) registered of, by, in the name or furnished or frequent available for the insured, regular or use of the named spouse, his relative of residing either household, the same other than a temporary substitute ” automobile. The effect of this provide definition is to an exception tо liability coverage when the insured is operating automobile that owned another member of her household or which is available for her frequent use. Plaintiff claims that type exclusion is valid and acts to eliminate liability coverage for Floria Carlson under her in the circumstances of this case.
In declaring void, the policy exclusion the trial relied judge solely upon provisions of the no-fault act. MCL 500.3101 et seq.; MSA 24.13101 seq. 500.3101; et He noted that MCL requires MSA 24.13101 regis- the owner or trant of a motor vehicle maintain security for payment of benefits under residual insur- ance. He further noted that residual liability cov- erage is 500.3131; covered MSA 24.13131 whiсh reads: "Residual bodily injury insurance shall cover damage property
and States, which occurs within the United possessions its territories and or in Canada. This insurance quired equivalent shall afford re- as evidence of automobile under the place financial laws injury damage which the In occurs. this state this insurance shall afford for automobile retained section 3135.” He also referred to MCL out sets those instances where tort is retained in Michigan. judge The trial read these sections together and concluded that residual lia- *5 App 767 90 Mich op Opinion the Court required was liability tort coverage for bility the act. appealing, we cannot con-
Although somewhat
500.3101;
MCL
analysis.
in the trial court’s
cur
owner
the
24.13101
requires only
MSA
registrant
security
the
maintain
of
vehicle
benefits.
of residual
payment
for in the
are
Such benefits
Carlson,
the vehicle involved in
the owner of
Arvid
Carlson’s policy
Gloria
Similarly,
the accident.
her car.
coverage
operating
when
provides
requires
no-fault act which
nothing
There is
injuries
to have residual
one
driving
one is
another’s vehicle.
occurring when
to the second-to-last
sentence of MCL
According
500.3131;
responsibil-
MSA
the financial
injury
occurs
place
laws of the
where
ity
determining
scope
to in
should be referrеd
in the
Plain-
coverage required
policy.
the liability
inapplicable
argues
tiff
in State
However,
incurred in this state.
injuries
Sivey,
Mutual Automobile Ins Co v
404 Mich
Farm
(1978),
the Court
looked to
56;
respect injury Farm Mutual Automo- Ziehm v State thermore, bile Ins Co, 576; 278 NW2d (1979), a of this Court concluded that panel act portion Michigan’s responsibility financial repealed had not the enactment impliedly been responsi- of the no-fault act and that the financial the extent of cover- bility laws determined Therefore, plaintiff’s age required under no-fault. argumеnt is without merit. Michigan are
The financial laws of responsibility act, MCL in the financial contained State Farm Ruuska Opinion of the Court seq.; seq. MSA 9.2201 et MCL 257.517; 257.501 et 9.2217 states that of financial proof responsi- may given filing a certificate of insur- bility ance, bond, deposit or a certificate of of money or 9.2218 deals with securities. It filing of certificates of insurance. reads: "(a) responsibility may Proof of financial be furnished *6 filing secretary of by state the written certifi- any duly of insurance carrier authorized cate to do certifying in this state that there is in business effect a liability policy motor vehicle for the benefit of the person required ity. motor vehicle same designate proof responsibil- to furnish of financial give
Such certificate shall the effective date of such liability policy, which date shall be the certificate, as the effective date and shall explicit description by by appropriate or ref- all motor thereby, erence vehicles covered unless the person policy is issued to a who is not the owner of a vehicle. motor "(b) No motor vehicle or shall be continue to be
registered in any person required the name of to file proof cle is so added.) of financial unless such motor vehi- designated (Emрhasis in such a certificate.” (a) part The last of subsection notes that the policy need not describe the vehicles covered when it is issued to one who does not own an automobile. This distinction between one who does not own an automobile and one who does is also carried over 257.519; to MCL which deals with a nonresident’s insurance. 257.520;
MCL MSA 9.2220 scope sets out the coverage required in a "motor liability vehicle That policy”. distinguishes section between "operator’s” policy and an However, "owner’s” insurance. it fails to define these terms. We believe the distinc- 257.518; tion noted in MCL MSA 9.2218 and MCL Opinion of the Court forwаrd to 257.519; again 9.2219 carried was one does not MSA 9.2220. When MCL car, "opera- is an issued own a car, an "own- one does own policy”; tor’s when er’s is issued. policy” Carlson owns a that Gloria undisputed
It is plain- issued motor vehicle covered Therefore, of her requirements tiff. of an requirements are governed 9.2220(b) 257.520(b); MSA policy”.
"owner’s states: insurance:
"Such owner’s
"(1)
description
designate by explicit
Shall
respect to
all motor vehicles with
appropriate reference
thereby
granted; and
to be
"(2)
named therein
Shall
insure
insured, using any
motor vehicle
person,
such
other
express
implied permis-
with the
or motor vehicles
insured, against
loss from the
named
sion of such-
liability imposed
damages arising
out of the
law
such motor vehicle or
ownership, maintenance or use of
of America or
within the United States
motor vehicles
Canada, subject to limits exclusive of
the Dominion of
*7
costs,
respect
to each such motor
interest
vehicle,
and
with
$20,000.00
bodily injury
as follows:
because
and, subject
1
person
any
1
in
accident
to or death of
$40,000.00
bodily
person,
1
because of
said limit for
1
persons
any
2
in
injury to or death of
or more
$10,000.00
accident,
injury
to or destruc-
and
because
accident;
property
of others in
1
tion
"(3)
showing
policy
a
is filed
that a
When
certificate
covering all motor vehicles
policies
have been issued
insuring
person
such
by the insured but not
owned
him, it
by
operating any
vehicle not owned
when
motor
motor
operate any
shall be unlawful for such
by
not covered
such
by
not owned
him or
vehicle
certificate.”
plain-
in
exclusion created
We believe that
775
Farm v Ruuska
State
op
Opinion
the Court
the requirements
in
conformity
tiff’s
is
policy
(1) of
policy. Subsection
an owner’s
9.2220(b)
257.520(b);
requires that
those
desig
be
expressly
covered
vehicles
provision
this
indicates that
By implication,
nated.
for the
need not be
driving
particular
automo
when she is
a
insured
This conclusion is
оr class of automobiles.
bile
(3)
contem
subsection
supported by
further
of insur
involving
situation
certificate
plates a
covering
motor vehicles owned
only
ance
issued,
could not
If such a
insured.
surplusage.
would have been mere
How
subsection
ever,
interpreting
in
statutes no
is to be
Baker v
possible.
as
if at all
surplusage
treated
Corp,
Motors
237, 246;
General
App
74 Mich
254
(1977),
(1977),
gtd
lv
Scott
NW2d 45
(1968).
Co,
Budd
37; 155
v
380 Mich
NW2d
Therefore,
hold that an exclusion to liability
we
driving
particular
when
vehicle or class
An
of vehicles is valid.
owner’s
need only
coverage for those
provide liability
cars owned
the insured. The
this case satisfies this
requirement
prоvides coverage
and also
when
not
him
driving
insured is
an automobile
owned
a member of the household and not available
frequent
coverage,
for their
use. This additional
although
required,
permissible
as an insurer
in excess of that
may provide liability coverage
9.2220(g).
required.
257.520(g);
See MCL
We further
note that an identical
clause has
in-
applied
to uninsured motorist
upheld
been
Ins
Garrison v Farm Bureau Mutual
surance
Co,
(1978),
App 734;
84 Mich
by, *9 State Farm v Ruuska 777 Opinion op the Court frequent regular available for use of the named insured, spouse, his residing relative of either household, the same other than a temporary substitute ” automobile. Unlike the clause in Travelers Indemnity, supra, the definition is drafted so that it is clear that its last three apply lines to all three subsections of Therefore, the definition. we conclude that ambiguous. definition is not argument Defendant’s final is that the exclusion created definition is improperly designated and given should not be effect. He that, claims valid, this "exclusion” must have been included in the list of exclusions to liability coverage con- tained in the policy. issue,
In addressing this
guided
we are
some
general
rules.
Insurance
policies must be con-
strued in accord with the
ordinary
popular
sense of the language used therein. Michigan Mu-
Mesner,
tual
Co
Liability
350,
v
2 Mich App
353;
(1966).
tablished Such a con- these circumstances. light surprising, clusion driving a coverage when providing in the "non-owned layperson vehicle”. To the "non-owned owned a vehicle naturally include vehicle” would "non- Thus, defining phrase one’s father. com- ordinary, to its reference owned vehicle” coverage would be meaning, monly-used *10 In to order policy. Carlson’s under Gloria provided provided not under coverage was determine case, it have been of this would the circumstances "non- the definition of one to read upon incumbent of the part in another provided owned vehicle” providing the conjunction in "non-owned vehi- operating such coverage when cles”. 257.520(b)(1);
According tо 9.2220(b)(1), owner’s ap- explicit description designate "by
must motor vehicles covered reference” all propriate to fails plaintiffs We believe that policy. "non- The definition used meet standard. this usage. its normal is in conflict with owned vehicle” the definition Moreover, created the exclusion It is policy. of the among provisions hidden type in boldface highlighted any way by 500.3009(2); 24.13009. See MCL warning. list of exclusions lengthy in the is it included Nor ex- doctrine of Under policy. in the alterious, to the failure unius est exclusio pressio of exclusions in the list include this cover- other exclusions implies that no age exist. Farm State v Ruuska D.E. P.J. Holbrook, case,
Therefore, the circumstances the defini- exclusion created by hold that we theoret- Although such an exclusion is is void. tion sound, it we refuse to enforce as written ically Since the common liability policy. Carlson’s Gloria "non-owned vehicle” would meaning phrase here, conclude question we include the vehicle cov- policy provided liability that Gloria Carlson’s case. present in the erage costs, interpretation No statutes Affirmed. being involved. Jr., J., concurred.
D. E. Holbrook, (concurring). D. E. This writer Holbrook, for in completely with the result called agrees however, is constrained to re- majority opinion, disagree reasoning upon with the spectfully opinion background is based. The factual stated appears correctly only therein pertinent other facts will be added this concur- ring opinion. court its opinion requiring
The trial based plaintiff to cover residual under Gloria provi- Carlson’s on the applicable Michigan sions of the no-fault act. MCL seq.; seq. 500.3101 et MSA 24.13101 et *11 requires MCL 500.3101 insurance Specifically, coverage as follows: "(1) registrant The of a motor vehicle re- owner or quired registered in maintain to be this state shall protec- security payment personal for of benefits insurance, insurance, protection
tion and resi- property liability Security dual be in effect insurance. shall during continuously period registration of motor vehicle. Holbrook, D. E.
"(3) Security may provided under a issued duly to transact business in by an insurer authorized payment for the this state which affords insurance represented or such benefits. A of insurance sold provide providing security shall be deemed to insur- the benefits.” payment ance for the case, the main concern in this liability, Residual in MCL 24.13131: for bodily injury "Residual insurance shall cover property damage and States, which occurs within the United possessions or in Canada.
its territories and This equivalent afford tо that re- insurance shall quired as evidence of automobile place laws of the under the financial damage injury occurs. In this state this afford insurance shall automobile retained 3135.” section 500.3135;. MSA 24.13135 is relied on to scope liability coverage
determine residual required law.
"(1) person subject A remains to tort ownership, noneconomic loss caused his maintenance only injured or use of a motor vehicle if the has death, impairment body suffered permanent serious function or added.) disfigurement.” (Emphasis serious court, trial relying provisions, on these purporting comply concluded requisites with the of no-fault cover- provide must age arising for residual from the use of another automobile and that the non-owned exclu- sion in this policy which acted to diminish coverage was void.
In pointed this connection it is out policies case there are two automobile *12 State Farm v Ruuska Holbrook, D. Concurrence E. P.J. under by plaintiff issued the laws of our state. The automobile, Arvid insuring one Carlson and his insuring Carlson, the other Gloria Arvid Carl- daughter, son’s and her paid automobile. Both premiums requisite respective policies. for their Plaintiff it is liable under admits issued to Arvid Carlson for bodily injuries serious Dale Ruuska. Carlson Gloria is likewise liable residual of the statute for the serious to Dale she injuries because was Ruuska (user) the driver of a motor vehicle —the tortfeasor at the time of the accident.
Such is the case because the no-fault statute requires liability coverage residual as follows: "In this state specifically this insurance shall for automobile afford retained section 3135”. (Emphasis added.) Section 3135 provides set forth hereinabove "A person subject remains to tort ownership, noneconomic loss caused his mainte- ” (Emphasis nance or use of a motor vehicle. added.)
Reading together these sections of the statute mandates in addition to the motor vehicle insured, being thе owner likewise is insured using against residual when he or she is motor vehicle legally. There is no Gloria question Carlson using was her father’s motor vehicle le- gally at the time of the accident.
Therefore this writer the trial court finds that was correct ruling citing subject its and in statute as the basis for its decision.
However, this writer also finds there is still premise upon another which this result can legally be reached —in fact mandated our law.
In 1971
Legislature
our
in its wisdom amended
the Insurance
PA
Code of 1956 and added 1971
90 D.E.
Holbrook,
placed in MCL as 500.3009
has been
24.13009, which reads as follows:
and MSA
*13
"(1)
liability
motor vehicle
An
or
automobile
from
insuring against
resulting
loss
damage, bodily injury or
by
for property
law
imposed
arising
of the owner-
person
out
any
suffered
death
a
vehicle shall not
or
of motor
ship, maintenance
use
re-
delivery in this state with
or issued for
delivered
principally
registered or
spect
any
to
motor vehicle
coverage as is
garaged in
state unless such
limit,
of
exclusive
subject
is
to
therein
$20,000.00
costs,
of
of not less than
because
and
interest
any
person
of 1
in
one acci-
injury to or death
bodily
dent,
and,
person,
1
to a limit of
to
subject
said limit
$40,000.00
bodily injury
of
to or
because
less than
not
death
a limit
accident,
to
persons
any
2 more
one
and
of
or
$10,000.00
injury
of
of
less
not
than
bеcause
any
property
of others
accident.
or destruction
insured,
"(2)
automobile
authorized
the
When
may be
motor
vehicle
operated by
person.
named
vehicle is
when a
excluded
following
the
unless
shall not be
Such exclusion
valid
the
or the declaration
is on the face of
notice
on
certificate of
of
and
the
page or certificate
(3)
of section 4
referred to in subsection
insurance
Act No.
amended,
1965, as
198 of the Public Acts of
1948:
Compiled Laws of
being
257.1104 of the
section
person operates a
Warning
a named excluded
—when
is
liability coverage
void—no one
insured.
all
vеhicle
Owners
responsible
legally
of the vehicle and others
fully
person remain
acts of the named excluded
the
personally liable.”
prompted
was
plaintiff
this statute
argues
Co v
Ins
by our decision in the case
Allstate
469; Co,
NW2d
Ins
Motor State
denial
(1971),
Supreme Court’s
and our
(1971), which denied
Even assuming reason said to enact prompted amendment Allstate case, may our decision reason, result complete be the not may and does plaintiff cannot thereby by claimed follow. the canons of asserts that
The defendant statu- indi- subsequent case law construction tory was to be that MCL cated *14 exclusions. permissible as to writer exclusive This agrees. that statutory rule of general
It is a construction ex- thing specific of mention the inclusion Sweden v is not mentioned. Van cludes that which Sweden, 241; Van 250 Mich 230 NW 191 (1930). grant specific powers The of very in рowers an exclusion of other restrictions is granted not subject reference to the matter same Industries, v legislation. Sebewaing Inc the 530, 546; 60 444 Sebewaing, 337 Mich NW2d Wolodzko, 119, 133; v (1953). 386 Mich 191 Stowers (1971). NW2d 355 to appears great authority
The of majority case 500.3009; nature support the exclusive v Cen- Ins Co Mutual 24.13009. In MSA Citizens 349, 353; 237 Co, tral National Ins App 65 Mich basic (1975), that 322 this Court NW2d found provision of Allstate had not affected been action, lan- following subsequent legislative guage: App 767 90 Mich
784 Holbrook, D. E. "Citizens, extent, Allstate large on Ins Co to a relies 469; Co, 352 App 33 Mich NW2d Motor State Ins construing (1971), Court of this and other decisions argues that the 1971 in effect former statute (d) changе not work a in the did amendment of §2 deci- as those this state enunciated public position.” agree this We with sions. case, attempt Court to this voided In coverage. from on passengers motorcycles exclude 97; 257 see, App Alcodray, Also Gurwin v (1977). NW2d DeFrain, 81 of Allstate Ins Co v
The recent case
(1978),
503, 506-508;
265 NW2d
the issue before
Court
properly
deals
case,
it is stated:
the instant
wherein
24.13009(2)
500.3009(2);
allows
ex-
MSA
"MCLA
operated
is
when a vehicle
clusion
here,
where,
the exclusion-
person,
named
as
by a
designed
to avoid
when certain
ary clause is
operation
the motor
in the
vehicle
persons involved
case)
(such
injured.
instant
arе
as the
in the
wife
Legislature
argues
intended
"Plaintiff
of an
household from resi-
exclude members
insured’s
of 3114 of the
by its enactment
dual
§
(MCLA
24.13114),
providing
no-fault act
personal
for members of the
protection
disagree.
statutory
We
amend-
insured’s household.
257.520(b)(2);
coverage,
ment
9.2220(b)(2),
MCLA
only where a named
allows an exclusion
operates
the automobile and such
provide
does not
authorized
the insured. The statute
*15
this case.
for
such as
one in
intent,
determining
legislative
"In
we must exam-
500.3009(1);
pertinent
MSA
statutes. MCLA
ine
24.13009(1)
for
provides
setting
for
the minimum limits
against
coverage
liability policy
insures
under a
* *
*
liability imposed by law for
resulting 'from
loss
arising
bodily
by any
death suffered
injury State Farm Ruuska
v
D.
E.
Holbrook,
ownership,
out of the
maintenance or use of a motor
* * *
vehicle’.
500.3131;
"MCLA
provides
24.13131 of no-fault
shall cover bodily
'[r]esidual
**
*
injury
property damage
insur-
[and
the]
ance
coverage
shall afford
equivalent
required
to that
as evidence of
automobile
insurance under the
place
financial
laws
in which the
* *
damage
injury
occurs
*. In this state this insur-
coverage
ance shall
afford
for automobile
re-
tained
section 3135’
the act.
being
These statutes
pari
together
materia must be construed
and a
reasonable
at preserving
construction
the force and
sought.
effect оf each is to be
v
Palmer
State Land
Board,
628;
(1943),
Office
304 Mich
Affirming the trial court’s statute, 500.3009; MSA MCL of the construction concurring opinion in this as contained under the Michi- provisions respective permits act, requiring no-fault automobile gan operators owners liability insurance vehicles, compatible given to be effect and motor operators owners and of both pertinent por- recognized motor vehicles Michigan Vehicle Code. tion MSA 9.2101. also this writer herein stated the reasons
For of the trial court. votes for affirmance