Summary
In Cavalier Ins Corp v Monroe Boat Club, 122 Mich. App. 268; 332 N.W.2d 464 (1982), lv den 417 Mich. 1078 (1983), this Court reaffirmed the rule that the intoxicated person has no right of action under the dramshop act. All three cases interpreted the statute as it read prior to the 1980 amendment.
Summary of this case from Hasty v. BroughtonOpinion
Docket No. 61134.
Decided December 21, 1982. Leave to appeal denied, 417 Mich. 1078.
Moss Richard (by J. Steven Sarvis), for plaintiff. Plunkett, Cooney, Rutt, Watters, Stanczyk Pedersen, P.C. (by Michael T. Lynch and Christine D. Oldani), for defendant.
Plaintiff's insured, while intoxicated, struck and injured a bicyclist as a result of which plaintiff paid benefits pursuant to the insurance policy which it had issued. Almost seven years after the accident, plaintiff brought suit under the dramshop act, MCL 436.22; MSA 18.993. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against the defendant and that the statute of limitations had run on any claim that the plaintiff might have had. Plaintiff appeals by right.
We have reviewed the briefs and record in this case and find no error. An intoxicated driver's insurer is not entitled to sue in its own name under the portion of the dramshop act which provides a cause of action for "other persons" injured in person or property. McDaniel v Crapo, 326 Mich. 555, 558; 40 N.W.2d 724 (1950). In McDaniel the insurer was allowed to sue under the dramshop act only because its insured had a cause of action under the act. Here the insured is the intoxicated person himself, and an intoxicated person has no right of action under the act. Scholten v Rhoades, 67 Mich. App. 736, 742; 242 N.W.2d 509 (1976). Since we conclude that the insurer of an intoxicated driver has no cause of action under MCL 436.22; MSA 18.993, we need not address the statute of limitations issue.
Affirmed. Defendant may tax costs.