Legal Opinion

Progressive Michigan Insurance v. Smith

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided March 16, 2010No. Docket No. 287505PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBandstra, J.

In this matter of first impression, I would conclude that the warning notice requirement of MCL 500.3009(2) must be enforced as written. Thus, the named driver exclusion in the policy of insurance at issue here is invalid because it does not strictly comply with the statute.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Defendants-appellants, Scott and Andrea Mihelsic, were injured in an automobile accident when a truck driven by defendant William Smith crossed the center-line of the road and struck their vehicle. When Smith purchased the truck, he did not have a driver’s license because he had too…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Maiden v. RozwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  2. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. FelderMichigan Court of Appeals · 1979

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. American Service Insurance Company v. AriveAppellate Court of Illinois · 2012
  2. Progressive Michigan Ins Co v. William SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Progressive Michigan Ins Co v. William SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API