PATTERSON v. STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO., 178 Mich. 288

Summary

The insurance company contended that its obligation to defend the insured in "suits" arising out of his use of insured vehicles did not include criminal prosecutions. The court affirmed the judgment. The court observed that it would be a forced and unnatural construction to hold that the word "suits" as used in the policy was intended to comprehend criminal prosecutions instituted and conducted by public officials in the name of the people, presumably for the punishment and suppression of crime. The court thought it clearly evident, construing the various provisions of the policy together, that the controlling thought as to indemnity, the thing contracted for, was protection against risk of liability for injury resulting from accidents in the operation of the automobiles, not risk of public prosecution for crimes or misdemeanors committed in the use of them. The court concluded that in the policy the word "suits" had to be taken to mean civil suits which would determine the pecuniary ...