reasoning is further highlighted by the fact that it would apparently hold that MCL 500.3220, despite nothing even approximating such language, envisions that insurers will investigate an insured, but will only do so when the claimant is a third party and not when the claimant is the insured. See Hammoud, 222 Mich App 485. How does any of this policy reasonably derive from the actual statute in controversy? 9 See MCL 8.3a (“All words and phrases shall be construed and understood according to the common and approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases, and such as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.”). 10 Accord United Sec Ins Co, 133 Mich App at 42 (<HOLDING>). 11 Ohio Farmers Ins Co, 179 Mich App at
holding legislatures intent is determined from plain and common meaning of words used holding that courts must generally give effect to the plain meaning of a statute because that is the best evidence of the legislatures intent holding that it is presumed that no change in the commonlaw was intended by the legislatures enactment of a statute on the same subject unless the language employed clearly indicates such an intention holding that the interpretation of statutory language should be consistent with the legislatures purpose and intent holding that under mcl 5003204 etseq rjescission is insufficiently similar to cancellation to support the conclusion that the legislatures enactment of a statute controlling cancellation of an automobile insurance policy without mentioning rescission demonstrates the legislatures intent to preclude rescission