Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2118

Automobile insurance; condition of maintaining insurer's certificate of authority; basis of underwriting rules.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE INSURANCE CODE OF 1956


Act 218 of 1956


500.2118 Automobile insurance; condition of maintaining insurer's certificate of authority; basis of underwriting rules.

Sec. 2118.

    (1) As a condition of maintaining its certificate of authority, an insurer shall not refuse to insure, refuse to continue to insure, or limit coverage available to an eligible person for automobile insurance, except in accordance with underwriting rules established as provided in this section and sections 2119 and 2120.

    (2) The underwriting rules that an insurer may establish for automobile insurance must be based only on the following:

    (a) Criteria identical to the standards set forth in section 2103(1).

    (b) The insurance eligibility point accumulation in excess of the amounts established by section 2103(1) of a member of the household of the eligible person insured or to be insured, if the member of the household usually accounts for 10% or more of the use of a vehicle insured or to be insured. For purposes of this subdivision, a person who is the principal driver for 1 automobile insurance policy is rebuttably presumed not to usually account for more than 10% of the use of other vehicles of the household not insured under the policy of that person.

    (c) With respect to a vehicle insured or to be insured, substantial modifications from the vehicle's original manufactured state for purposes of increasing the speed or acceleration capabilities of the vehicle.

    (d) Except as otherwise provided in section 2116a or 2116b, failure by the person to provide proof that insurance required by section 3101 was maintained in force with respect to any vehicle that was both owned by the person and driven or moved by the person or by a member of the household of the person during the 6-month period immediately preceding application. The proof must take the form of a certification by the person on a form provided by the insurer that the vehicle was not driven or moved without maintaining the insurance required by section 3101 during the 6-month period immediately preceding application.

    (e) Type of vehicle insured or to be insured, based on 1 of the following, without regard to the age of the vehicle:

    (i) The vehicle is of limited production or of custom manufacture.

    (ii) The insurer does not have a rate lawfully in effect for the type of vehicle.

    (iii) The vehicle represents exposure to extraordinary expense for repair or replacement under comprehensive or collision coverage.

    (f) Use of a vehicle insured or to be insured for transportation of passengers for hire, for rental purposes, or for commercial purposes. Rules under this subdivision must not be based on the use of a vehicle for volunteer or charitable purposes or for which reimbursement for normal operating expenses is received.

    (g) Payment of a minimum deposit at the time of application or renewal, not to exceed the smallest deposit required under an extended payment or premium finance plan customarily used by the insurer.

    (h) For purposes of requiring comprehensive deductibles of not more than $150.00, or of refusing to insure if the person refuses to accept a required deductible, the claim experience of the person with respect to comprehensive coverage.

    (i) Total abstinence from the consumption of alcoholic beverages except if such beverages are consumed as part of a religious ceremony. However, an insurer shall not use an underwriting rule based on this subdivision unless the insurer was authorized to transact automobile insurance in this state before January 1, 1981, and has consistently used such an underwriting rule as part of the insurer's automobile insurance underwriting since being authorized to transact automobile insurance in this state.

    (j) One or more incidents involving a threat, harassment, or physical assault by the insured or applicant for insurance on an insurer employee, agent, or agent employee while acting within the scope of his or her employment, if a report of the incident was filed with an appropriate law enforcement agency.

History: Add. 1979, Act 145, Eff. Jan. 1, 1981 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 461, Imd. Eff. Jan. 15, 1981 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 7, Imd. Eff. Feb. 1, 1984 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 350, Eff. Mar. 29, 1985 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 43, Eff. Mar. 30, 1989 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 492, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003 ;-- Am. 2007, Act 35, Imd. Eff. July 11, 2007 ;-- Am. 2019, Act 21, Imd. Eff. June 11, 2019

Compiler's Notes:

    Act 143 of 1993, which amended this section, was submitted to the people by referendum petition (as Proposal C) and rejected by a majority of the votes cast at the November 8, 1994 general election.

PopularName Notes:

Act 218

PopularName Notes:

Essential Insurance

PopularName Notes:

No-Fault Insurance
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: Husted v. Auto-Owners Insurance
Husted v. Auto-Owners Insurance (1999) mich · cites it 4× “MCL 500.2118(2)00; MSA 24.12118(2)00 states: The underwriting rules which an insurer may establish for automobile insurance shall be based only on the following: * * # Use of a vehicle insured or to be insured for transportation of passengers for hire, for rental purposes, or…”
Flumignan v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange (1983) michctapp “MCL 500.2118(1); MSA 24.12118(1). "Eligible person” is defined as an owner or registrant of a licensed vehicle or a licensed driver, MCL 500.”
Insurance Institute v. Commissioner of the Office of Financial & Insurance Services (2008) michctapp · cites it 2× “2117 (home), MCL 500.2118 (automobile), MCL 500.2105 (group).”
Wolverine Mutual Insurance Company v. Mathew Van Dyken (2023) michctapp · cites it 4× “” In their special and affirmative defenses, the providers asserted that Wolverine’s “underwriting rules, as applied in this case, violated MCL 500.2118 and/or MCL 500.2119.”1 The providers also filed a counter-complaint seeking payment of their claims and a declaratory judgment…”
Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Mich v. Omar Hyder Khan (2020) michctapp · cites it 3× “MCL 500.2118(2)(f) provides that an insurer may establish an exclusion to coverage for the business use of a vehicle: (2) The underwriting rules that an insurer may establish for automobile insurance must be based only on the following: * * * (f) Use of a vehicle insured or to…”
Michael Vantol v. Home-Owners Insurance Company (2019) michctapp “, specifically permits insurers to limit insurance coverage on the basis of business use via MCL 500.2118(2)(f)). Our interpretation of Progressive’s policy and the exclusion at issue not only reflects the demonstrated intent of the parties to the Progressive policy, but also…”
Michigan Pizza Hut Inc v. Home-Owners Insurance Company (2022) michctapp “Plaintiffs aver that the exception to the exclusion in Home-Owners’ policy and the statute from which it derives, MCL 500.2118(2)(f), both contain two limitations: (1) for volunteer or charitable purposes or (2) for which reimbursement of normal operating expenses is received.”
Ameen Al-Gahmi v. Sadik Al-Jahmi (2023) michctapp “However, MCL 500.2118(2)(f), “specifically permits insurers to limit insurance coverage on the basis of business use.”
Richard Finch Jr v. Russell Keith Gewin (2023) michctapp “Indeed, plaintiff likely would not have been covered under a personal no-fault policy given the business-use exclusion found in most policies, see MCL 500.2118(2)(f); Husted v Dobbs, 459 Mich 500, 506 ; 591 NW2d 642 (1999), and therefore the failure to maintain a personal policy…”
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co of Michigan v. Michelle Wagner (2015) michctapp “The trial court held that the provision was not ambiguous and that there was no genuine issue of the material fact that Conor was delivering pizzas at the time of the accident.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2118(1) — 2 cases
Flumignan v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange (1983) michctapp “MCL 500.2118(1); MSA 24.12118(1). "Eligible person” is defined as an owner or registrant of a licensed vehicle or a licensed driver, MCL 500.”
Wolverine Mutual Insurance Company v. Mathew Van Dyken (2023) michctapp “” In their special and affirmative defenses, the providers asserted that Wolverine’s “underwriting rules, as applied in this case, violated MCL 500.2118 and/or MCL 500.2119.”1 The providers also filed a counter-complaint seeking payment of their claims and a declaratory judgment…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2118(2) — 1 case
Husted v. Auto-Owners Insurance (1999) mich “MCL 500.2118(2)00; MSA 24.12118(2)00 states: The underwriting rules which an insurer may establish for automobile insurance shall be based only on the following: * * # Use of a vehicle insured or to be insured for transportation of passengers for hire, for rental purposes, or…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2118(2)(f) — 7 cases
Husted v. Auto-Owners Insurance (1999) mich “MCL 500.2118(2)00; MSA 24.12118(2)00 states: The underwriting rules which an insurer may establish for automobile insurance shall be based only on the following: * * # Use of a vehicle insured or to be insured for transportation of passengers for hire, for rental purposes, or…”
Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Mich v. Omar Hyder Khan (2020) michctapp “MCL 500.2118(2)(f) provides that an insurer may establish an exclusion to coverage for the business use of a vehicle: (2) The underwriting rules that an insurer may establish for automobile insurance must be based only on the following: * * * (f) Use of a vehicle insured or to…”
Michael Vantol v. Home-Owners Insurance Company (2019) michctapp “, specifically permits insurers to limit insurance coverage on the basis of business use via MCL 500.2118(2)(f)). Our interpretation of Progressive’s policy and the exclusion at issue not only reflects the demonstrated intent of the parties to the Progressive policy, but also…”
Michigan Pizza Hut Inc v. Home-Owners Insurance Company (2022) michctapp “Plaintiffs aver that the exception to the exclusion in Home-Owners’ policy and the statute from which it derives, MCL 500.2118(2)(f), both contain two limitations: (1) for volunteer or charitable purposes or (2) for which reimbursement of normal operating expenses is received.”
Ameen Al-Gahmi v. Sadik Al-Jahmi (2023) michctapp “However, MCL 500.2118(2)(f), “specifically permits insurers to limit insurance coverage on the basis of business use.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.