 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Auto Club Group Insurance Co. v. Daniel9/13/2002
rge of careless discharge of a firearm. Thus, the criminal act exclusion precludes coverage for Bearinger's injuries.
Bearinger also contends that the trial court reversibly erred by holding that the "criminal act" exclusion is not void as against public policy. "Any clause in an insurance policy is valid as long as it is clear, unambiguous and not in contravention of public policy." Raska, supra, 412 Mich at 361-362. An insurance company is free to limit its liability as long as it does so clearly and unambiguously. Fick, supra, 226 Mich App at 201.
The "criminal acts" exclusion is not contrary to public policy because the policy language is clear and unambiguous and ACGIC is free to limit its liability. Further, Bearinger fails to support his claim that the criminal exclusion provision renders the policy "illusory." Again, when Daniel voluntarily pleaded guilty to a criminal charge, she excluded herself from insurance coverage. We further note that, as a matter of public policy, an insurance policy that excludes coverage for a person's criminal acts serves to deter crime, while a policy that provides benefits to those who commit crimes would encourage it.
Further, Bearinger says that the trial court erred by failing to strike the "criminal act" exclusion as a term that is not subject to negotiation in an adhesion contract. In determining whether a policy constitutes an adhesion contract, this Court considers the relative bargaining powers of the parties and whether the disputed contract term is unreasonable. Rehmann, Robson & Co v McMahan, 187 Mich App 36, 43; 466 NW2d 325 (1991). Generally, this Court will not invalidate contracts as adhesion contracts where the challenged provision is reasonable. Rembert v Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc, 235 Mich App 118, 157; 596 NW2d 208 (1999).
While Daniel may not have had significant bargaining power over the terms of the ACGIC policy, the "criminal act" exclusion is unambiguous and Bearinger has presented no evidence that a similar insurance policy, without a "criminal act" exclusion, was unavailable from another company. Most importantly, as discussed, the "criminal act" exclusion is neither unreasonable nor contrary to public policy.
Affirmed.
Patrick M. Meter
Henry William Saad
Robert B. Burns
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|