loss payable clause in Michigan

1992I write separately to address more directly the language of the insurance contract and to further explain my reasoning. i Relying on Boyd v General Motors Acceptance Corp, 162 Mich App 446 ; 413 NW2d 683 (1987), Allstate argues that the standard loss payable clause included in its policy issued to Bobby Taylor does not allow Foremost to recover where there has been no covered "loss” from the perspective of Bobby Taylor.

1992I write separately to address more directly the language of the insurance contract and to further explain my reasoning. i Relying on Boyd v General Motors Acceptance Corp, 162 Mich App 446 ; 413 NW2d 683 (1987), Allstate argues that the standard loss payable clause included in its policy issued to Bobby Taylor does not allow Foremost to recover where there has been no covered "loss” from the perspective of Bobby Taylor.

2007Interest paid pursuant to this section shall be offset by any award of interest that is payable by the insurer pursuant to the award. [MCL 500.2006.] In Yaldo v North Pointe Ins Co, 457 Mich 341 ; 578 NW2d 274 (1998), the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant insurer when the defendant refused to pay benefits under a lender’s loss payable clause after a land contract vendee defaulted on a land contract and the plaintiffs property was damaged by fire.

2007Interest paid pursuant to this section shall be offset by any award of interest that is payable by the insurer pursuant to the award. [MCL 500.2006.] In Yaldo v North Pointe Ins Co, 457 Mich 341 ; 578 NW2d 274 (1998), the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant insurer when the defendant refused to pay benefits under a lender’s loss payable clause after a land contract vendee defaulted on a land contract and the plaintiffs property was damaged by fire.

1992In Gibraltar, the court concluded: A simple reading of the loss payable clause reveals that it is a conversion of the insured property, not of the mortgagee's interest in that property, which would shield the insurer from liability. [31] Nelson & Witt v Texas Co, 256 Mich 65, 70 ; 239 NW 289 (1931); Thoma v Tracy Motor Sales, Inc, 360 Mich 434, 438 ; 104 NW2d 360 (1960); Citizens Ins Co v Delcamp, 178 Mich App 570, 575 ; 444 NW2d 210 (1985). [32] Warren Tool Co v Stephenson, 11 Mich App 274, 299 ; 161 NW2d 133 (1968); Citizens Ins Co , n 31 supra. [33] Foremost Ins Co, n 1 supra at 122. [34] W

1992In Gibraltar, the court concluded: A simple reading of the loss payable clause reveals that it is a conversion of the insured property, not of the mortgagee's interest in that property, which would shield the insurer from liability. [31] Nelson & Witt v Texas Co, 256 Mich 65, 70 ; 239 NW 289 (1931); Thoma v Tracy Motor Sales, Inc, 360 Mich 434, 438 ; 104 NW2d 360 (1960); Citizens Ins Co v Delcamp, 178 Mich App 570, 575 ; 444 NW2d 210 (1985). [32] Warren Tool Co v Stephenson, 11 Mich App 274, 299 ; 161 NW2d 133 (1968); Citizens Ins Co , n 31 supra. [33] Foremost Ins Co, n 1 supra at 122. [34] W

1992In Gibraltar, the court concluded: A simple reading of the loss payable clause reveals that it is a conversion of the insured property, not of the mortgagee's interest in that property, which would shield the insurer from liability. [31] Nelson & Witt v Texas Co, 256 Mich 65, 70 ; 239 NW 289 (1931); Thoma v Tracy Motor Sales, Inc, 360 Mich 434, 438 ; 104 NW2d 360 (1960); Citizens Ins Co v Delcamp, 178 Mich App 570, 575 ; 444 NW2d 210 (1985). [32] Warren Tool Co v Stephenson, 11 Mich App 274, 299 ; 161 NW2d 133 (1968); Citizens Ins Co , n 31 supra. [33] Foremost Ins Co, n 1 supra at 122. [34] W

1992In Gibraltar, the court concluded: A simple reading of the loss payable clause reveals that it is a conversion of the insured property, not of the mortgagee's interest in that property, which would shield the insurer from liability. [31] Nelson & Witt v Texas Co, 256 Mich 65, 70 ; 239 NW 289 (1931); Thoma v Tracy Motor Sales, Inc, 360 Mich 434, 438 ; 104 NW2d 360 (1960); Citizens Ins Co v Delcamp, 178 Mich App 570, 575 ; 444 NW2d 210 (1985). [32] Warren Tool Co v Stephenson, 11 Mich App 274, 299 ; 161 NW2d 133 (1968); Citizens Ins Co , n 31 supra. [33] Foremost Ins Co, n 1 supra at 122. [34] W

1992See also Vormelker v Oleksinski, 40 Mich App 618, 624 ; 199 NW2d 287 (1972); Cole v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 116 Mich App 51, 55 ; 321 NW2d 839 (1982); Heritage Federal Savings Bank v Cincinnati Ins Co, 180 Mich App 720, 723-724 ; 448 NW2d 39 (1989). [12] Couch, n 8 supra, § 42:728, pp 763-764. [13] Lehto, The standard mortgage clause, n 10 supra. [14] Id. [15] The exclusion barring a lender's claim for the insured's conversion, embezzlement, or secretion of its automobile has been part of the standard loss payable clause included in automobile insurance policies since at least 1920.

1992See also Vormelker v Oleksinski, 40 Mich App 618, 624 ; 199 NW2d 287 (1972); Cole v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 116 Mich App 51, 55 ; 321 NW2d 839 (1982); Heritage Federal Savings Bank v Cincinnati Ins Co, 180 Mich App 720, 723-724 ; 448 NW2d 39 (1989). [12] Couch, n 8 supra, § 42:728, pp 763-764. [13] Lehto, The standard mortgage clause, n 10 supra. [14] Id. [15] The exclusion barring a lender's claim for the insured's conversion, embezzlement, or secretion of its automobile has been part of the standard loss payable clause included in automobile insurance policies since at least 1920.

1992The interest of a lien holder is an insurable one despite the fact that he may sue his debtor personally or that the interest is subject to contingencies.” [Booker T Theatre Co v Great American Ins Co of New York, 369 Mich 583, 587 ; 120 NW2d 776 (1963), quoting 29 Am Jur, Insurance, § 453, p 790.] Thus, because the standard loss payable clause protects the lienholder’s interest in the property insured — the lien — the proviso must refer to the conversion, embezzlement, or secretion of the lien-holder’s interest.

1992The interest of a lien holder is an insurable one despite the fact that he may sue his debtor personally or that the interest is subject to contingencies.” [Booker T Theatre Co v Great American Ins Co of New York, 369 Mich 583, 587 ; 120 NW2d 776 (1963), quoting 29 Am Jur, Insurance, § 453, p 790.] Thus, because the standard loss payable clause protects the lienholder’s interest in the property insured — the lien — the proviso must refer to the conversion, embezzlement, or secretion of the lien-holder’s interest.

1992In Gibraltar, the court concluded: A simple reading of the loss payable clause reveals that it is a conversion of the insured property, not of the mortgagee's interest in that property, which would shield the insurer from liability. [31] Nelson & Witt v Texas Co, 256 Mich 65, 70 ; 239 NW 289 (1931); Thoma v Tracy Motor Sales, Inc, 360 Mich 434, 438 ; 104 NW2d 360 (1960); Citizens Ins Co v Delcamp, 178 Mich App 570, 575 ; 444 NW2d 210 (1985). [32] Warren Tool Co v Stephenson, 11 Mich App 274, 299 ; 161 NW2d 133 (1968); Citizens Ins Co , n 31 supra. [33] Foremost Ins Co, n 1 supra at 122. [34] W

1992In Gibraltar, the court concluded: A simple reading of the loss payable clause reveals that it is a conversion of the insured property, not of the mortgagee's interest in that property, which would shield the insurer from liability. [31] Nelson & Witt v Texas Co, 256 Mich 65, 70 ; 239 NW 289 (1931); Thoma v Tracy Motor Sales, Inc, 360 Mich 434, 438 ; 104 NW2d 360 (1960); Citizens Ins Co v Delcamp, 178 Mich App 570, 575 ; 444 NW2d 210 (1985). [32] Warren Tool Co v Stephenson, 11 Mich App 274, 299 ; 161 NW2d 133 (1968); Citizens Ins Co , n 31 supra. [33] Foremost Ins Co, n 1 supra at 122. [34] W

1992In Gibraltar, the court concluded: A simple reading of the loss payable clause reveals that it is a conversion of the insured property, not of the mortgagee's interest in that property, which would shield the insurer from liability. [31] Nelson & Witt v Texas Co, 256 Mich 65, 70 ; 239 NW 289 (1931); Thoma v Tracy Motor Sales, Inc, 360 Mich 434, 438 ; 104 NW2d 360 (1960); Citizens Ins Co v Delcamp, 178 Mich App 570, 575 ; 444 NW2d 210 (1985). [32] Warren Tool Co v Stephenson, 11 Mich App 274, 299 ; 161 NW2d 133 (1968); Citizens Ins Co , n 31 supra. [33] Foremost Ins Co, n 1 supra at 122. [34] W

1992In Gibraltar, the court concluded: A simple reading of the loss payable clause reveals that it is a conversion of the insured property, not of the mortgagee's interest in that property, which would shield the insurer from liability. [31] Nelson & Witt v Texas Co, 256 Mich 65, 70 ; 239 NW 289 (1931); Thoma v Tracy Motor Sales, Inc, 360 Mich 434, 438 ; 104 NW2d 360 (1960); Citizens Ins Co v Delcamp, 178 Mich App 570, 575 ; 444 NW2d 210 (1985). [32] Warren Tool Co v Stephenson, 11 Mich App 274, 299 ; 161 NW2d 133 (1968); Citizens Ins Co , n 31 supra. [33] Foremost Ins Co, n 1 supra at 122. [34] W

1992See also Vormelker v Oleksinski, 40 Mich App 618, 624 ; 199 NW2d 287 (1972); Cole v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 116 Mich App 51, 55 ; 321 NW2d 839 (1982); Heritage Federal Savings Bank v Cincinnati Ins Co, 180 Mich App 720, 723-724 ; 448 NW2d 39 (1989). [12] Couch, n 8 supra, § 42:728, pp 763-764. [13] Lehto, The standard mortgage clause, n 10 supra. [14] Id. [15] The exclusion barring a lender's claim for the insured's conversion, embezzlement, or secretion of its automobile has been part of the standard loss payable clause included in automobile insurance policies since at least 1920.

1992See also Vormelker v Oleksinski, 40 Mich App 618, 624 ; 199 NW2d 287 (1972); Cole v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 116 Mich App 51, 55 ; 321 NW2d 839 (1982); Heritage Federal Savings Bank v Cincinnati Ins Co, 180 Mich App 720, 723-724 ; 448 NW2d 39 (1989). [12] Couch, n 8 supra, § 42:728, pp 763-764. [13] Lehto, The standard mortgage clause, n 10 supra. [14] Id. [15] The exclusion barring a lender's claim for the insured's conversion, embezzlement, or secretion of its automobile has been part of the standard loss payable clause included in automobile insurance policies since at least 1920.

1992Buxton v Int'l Indemnity Co, 47 Cal App 583; 191 P 84 (1920).

1992Buxton v Int’l Indemnity Co, 47 Cal App 583; 191 P 84 (1920).

1987While interpreting the loss-payable clause at issue in this rather technical sense, we are not unmindful of the recent decision of our Supreme Court in Powers v DAIIE, 427 Mich 602, 620 ; 398 NW2d 411 (1986), where the Court, quoting Pietrantonio v Travelers Ins Co, 282 Mich 111, 116 ; 275 NW2d 786 (1937), ruled in part that " '[Technical constructions of policies of insurance are not favored.’ ” However, Powers involved an interpretation of the scope of coverage in a no-fault automobile insurance policy in claims by insured laymen.

1987Wilson, Murphy, supra. We first note that a construction of "any act” which includes intentional destruction ignores the antecedent phrase "shall not be invalidated.” The ordinary meaning of "invalidate” is to make invalid.

1987While interpreting the loss-payable clause at issue in this rather technical sense, we are not unmindful of the recent decision of our Supreme Court in Powers v DAIIE, 427 Mich 602, 620 ; 398 NW2d 411 (1986), where the Court, quoting Pietrantonio v Travelers Ins Co, 282 Mich 111, 116 ; 275 NW2d 786 (1937), ruled in part that " '[Technical constructions of policies of insurance are not favored.’ ” However, Powers involved an interpretation of the scope of coverage in a no-fault automobile insurance policy in claims by insured laymen.

1987While interpreting the loss-payable clause at issue in this rather technical sense, we are not unmindful of the recent decision of our Supreme Court in Powers v DAIIE, 427 Mich 602, 620 ; 398 NW2d 411 (1986), where the Court, quoting Pietrantonio v Travelers Ins Co, 282 Mich 111, 116 ; 275 NW2d 786 (1937), ruled in part that " '[Technical constructions of policies of insurance are not favored.’ ” However, Powers involved an interpretation of the scope of coverage in a no-fault automobile insurance policy in claims by insured laymen.

1914Trust Co. of Georgia v. Insurance Co., 119 Ga. 672 ( 46 S. E. 855 ); Donaldson v. Insurance Co., 95 Tenn. 280 ( 32 S. W. 251 ); Hartford Fire Ins.

1914Trust Co. of Georgia v. Insurance Co., 119 Ga. 672 ( 46 S. E. 855 ); Donaldson v. Insurance Co., 95 Tenn. 280 ( 32 S. W. 251 ); Hartford Fire Ins.

1914Trust Co. of Georgia v. Insurance Co., 119 Ga. 672 ( 46 S. E. 855 ); Donaldson v. Insurance Co., 95 Tenn. 280 ( 32 S. W. 251 ); Hartford Fire Ins.

1914Trust Co. of Georgia v. Insurance Co., 119 Ga. 672 ( 46 S. E. 855 ); Donaldson v. Insurance Co., 95 Tenn. 280 ( 32 S. W. 251 ); Hartford Fire Ins.

1914It is urged under this head that the vendor under a land contract is not the unconditional owner, and that his interest in the insurance is only as security for his debt, and that it is the vendee who is the insurer, and the vendor cannot maintain a suit against the insurance company, citing Van Buren v. Insurance Co., 28 Mich. 398 ; Hartford Fire Ins.

1914I think it may be said, in view of earlier and of later decisions, notably Van Buren v. Insurance Co., 28 Mich. 398, Minnock v. Insurance Co., 90 Mich. 236 ( 51 N. W. 367 ), and Jaskulski v. Insurance Co., 131 Mich. 603 ( 92 N. W. 98 ), that before the standard form of policy came into use the usual loss payable clause or rider in or upon a policy of insurance created no contract relations between the mortgagee and the insurer.

1914I think it may be said, in view of earlier and of later decisions, notably Van Buren v. Insurance Co., 28 Mich. 398, Minnock v. Insurance Co., 90 Mich. 236 ( 51 N. W. 367 ), and Jaskulski v. Insurance Co., 131 Mich. 603 ( 92 N. W. 98 ), that before the standard form of policy came into use the usual loss payable clause or rider in or upon a policy of insurance created no contract relations between the mortgagee and the insurer.

1914I think it may be said, in view of earlier and of later decisions, notably Van Buren v. Insurance Co., 28 Mich. 398, Minnock v. Insurance Co., 90 Mich. 236 ( 51 N. W. 367 ), and Jaskulski v. Insurance Co., 131 Mich. 603 ( 92 N. W. 98 ), that before the standard form of policy came into use the usual loss payable clause or rider in or upon a policy of insurance created no contract relations between the mortgagee and the insurer.

1914I think it may be said, in view of earlier and of later decisions, notably Van Buren v. Insurance Co., 28 Mich. 398, Minnock v. Insurance Co., 90 Mich. 236 ( 51 N. W. 367 ), and Jaskulski v. Insurance Co., 131 Mich. 603 ( 92 N. W. 98 ), that before the standard form of policy came into use the usual loss payable clause or rider in or upon a policy of insurance created no contract relations between the mortgagee and the insurer.

1914I think it may be said, in view of earlier and of later decisions, notably Van Buren v. Insurance Co., 28 Mich. 398, Minnock v. Insurance Co., 90 Mich. 236 ( 51 N. W. 367 ), and Jaskulski v. Insurance Co., 131 Mich. 603 ( 92 N. W. 98 ), that before the standard form of policy came into use the usual loss payable clause or rider in or upon a policy of insurance created no contract relations between the mortgagee and the insurer.