SARAH PERRY V MICHAEL F SIED

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SARAH PERRY, UNPUBLISHED July 31, 1998 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 199915 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 94-407514 NI MICHAEL F. SIED, Defendant, and AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Intervening Defendant-Appellant. Before: White, P.J., and Hood and Gage, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Intervening defendant Auto Club Insurance Association (ACIA) appeals as of right from an order granting plaintiff’s motion for application of Ontario law. We affirm. Plaintiff, a Michigan resident, suffered injuries in Ontario when her vehicle was rear-ended by defendant Sied, also a Michigan resident. She filed suit in Wayne Circuit Court. Sied’s policy with ACIA provided for limits of $20,000 in United States currency. Sied’s insurer, ACIA, intervened after plaintiff asserted that Ontario’s insurance limits of $200,000 in Canadian currency applied under a Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU) document ACIA filed with the Canadian government. The parties agreed to submit the issue of damages to arbitration, at which plaintiff was awarded $95,000 in United States currency. Plaintiff then renewed her motion to apply Ontario law. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion after finding this Court’s decision in ACIA v Lozanis, 215 Mich App 415; 546 NW2d 648 (1996), controlling. We agree that Lozanis, supra, is controlling. In Lozanis, the claimant was injured by an unidentified motorist in Ontario. Id., pp 416-417. The claimant’s uninsured motorist policy with ACIA -1­ had $20,000 limits. Although the claimant filed suit in Ontario, that suit was enjoined. Id., p 417. This Court concluded that ACIA had agreed in the PAU filed with the Canadian -2­ government not to assert policy limits below $200,000 against an insured injured in Ontario. Id., pp 419-420. ACIA was therefore subjected to Canadian law, and the fact that ACIA had filed suit in Macomb County was not dispositive, since it had agreed to provide coverage for its insureds traveling in Canada. Id., p 420. The Court concluded that the PAU did not require that the action be filed in Canada. Id. Following Lozanis, we conclude that here, too, the fact that the action was filed in Wayne County is not dispositive. The accident occurred in Ontario, and ACIA agreed in the PAU to provide coverage up to the Ontario limits. Although the claimant in Lozanis filed suit in Ontario, that suit was enjoined and was not the basis for this Court’s decision applying the Ontario limits. Neither Lozanis nor the instant case involved an Ontario judgment. We find Lozanis to be controlling authority for the application of the Ontario limits in this case. Affirmed. /s/ Helene N. White /s/ Harold Hood /s/ Hilda R. Gage -3­

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.