 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Old Republic Insurance Co.7/28/2000
FOR PUBLICATION
9:20 a.m.
ON REMAND
Updated Copy September 29, 2000
This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court for our consideration of language in the no-fault act's "household exclusion," MCL 500.3123(1)(b); MSA 24.13123(1)(b), which excludes property protection insurance coverage for intrafamily property damage claims related to motor vehicle accidents. We conclude that the household exclusion's reference to "a property protection insurance policy" refers solely to the insurance policy covering the vehicle or vehicles involved in the accident. We therefore reaffirm our previous disposition reversing the trial court's grant of summary disposition for defendant and remand.
I.
The underlying facts of this case were set forth in our previous decision, 234 Mich App 465, 466; 595 NW2d 149 (1999):
This case stems from an accident that occurred when Ibrahim Mroue, while operating a rented truck, struck real and personal property owned by Mroue's business. The accident caused $61,879.81 worth of damage, which plaintiff paid to Mroue. Upon payment, plaintiff became subrogated to the rights of Mroue against defendant, the insurer of the truck. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the vehicle insurance policy the rental company had on the truck should provide indemnification to plaintiff for the amount it paid to Mroue for the damage to the real property.
In our earlier decision, we determined that summary disposition for defendant was improper because Mroue was not a named insured on the policy covering the rental truck and, as such, was not a person named in "a property protection insurance policy" so as to exclude his property damage claim under the no-fault act's household exclusion. Id. at 470. We remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Id.
Plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In lieu of granting leave, the Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court to consider whether the statutory language "by a person named in a property protection insurance policy," MCL 500.3123; MSA 24.13123,
limits the inquiry under ยง 3123 solely to the property protection insurance policy that covers the "vehicle involved in the motor vehicle accident out of which the property damage arose," or whether damage is excluded from property protection benefits if the property owner was named in any property protection insurance policy. [State Farm Fire & Casualty Co v Old Republic Ins Co, 461 Mich 924 (1999) (emphasis in original).]
II.
The cardinal rule in interpreting statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Turner v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 448 Mich 22, 27; 528 NW2d 681 (1995). Where the meaning of statutory language is ambiguous, judicial construction is necessary. Id. Words are to be accorded their ordinary and generally accepted meaning. Id. In interpreting a particular phrase in a statute, the courts must construe the phrase in a way that does not conflict with, or deny effect to, other portions of the statute. Id. at 28. An interpretation of a word in the no-fault act must be made in the context of the entire act, after due consideration of other sections of the act, so as to produce an harmonious and consistent enactment as a whole. Michigan Mut Ins Co v.Farm Bureau Ins Group, 183 Mich App 626, 631-632, 455 NW2d 352 (1990).
III.
Under MCL 500.3123; MSA 24.13123, a no-fault insurer's liability to pay property protection benefits is subject to certain statutory exceptions. Turner, supra at 28-29. Section 3123 provides:
(1) Damage to the follo
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|