Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #342942; Unpublished
Judges Meter, O’Brien, and Swartzle; Per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General/Miscellaneous [§500.3163]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Interpretation of Insurance Contracts
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary disposition seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s first-party action to recover no-fault PIP benefits. At the time of the subject motor vehicle collision, the plaintiff, Lonnie Briggs, had an “Indiana Family Automobile Insurance Policy” with GEICO Casualty Company. The policy did not include a provision for the payment of Michigan no-fault benefits, and GEICO Casualty was not a certified insurance carrier under MCL 500.3163. The cover page of the policy, however, listed four separate, affiliated GEICO entities, two of which were certified under MCL 500.3163. Briggs argued that he was covered by each entity listed on the cover page, but the Court of Appeals rejected this argument and determined that the policy was unambiguous as to which entity was Briggs’s correct insurer. Furthermore, since that insurer was not certified under MCL 500.3163, Briggs was ineligible for no-fault PIP benefits.
Lonnie Briggs was injured in a motor vehicle collision in Michigan, and at the time of the collision, he had been living part-time in both Indiana and Michigan but maintained Indiana insurance on his vehicle. After the collision, he sought no-fault PIP benefits from his insurer, GEICO Casualty, but GEICO Casualty denied his claim, asserting that it was neither authorized nor licensed to sell insurance in Michigan and that Briggs’ policy did not include a provision for the payment of Michigan no-fault benefits. Briggs thereafter filed the instant action against GEICO Casualty, alleging that he was a Michigan resident at the time of the collision and therefore entitled to no-fault benefits. GEICO Casualty moved for summary disposition, but the trial court denied its motion, holding that there were questions of fact regarding which GEICO entity was Briggs’s correct insurer, considering four separate, affiliated GEICO entities were listed on the cover page of Briggs’s policy, and two of them were certified under MCL 500.3163.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of GEICO Casualty’s motion for summary disposition, finding that Briggs’s policy was unambiguous with regard to the fact that GEICO Casualty was his sole insurer. And, since GEICO Casualty was not certified in Michigan under MCL 500.3163, Briggs was ineligible to receive no-fault PIP benefits.
This Court must read insurance contracts “as a whole to effectuate the intent of the parties.” Tenneco Inc v Amerisure Mut Ins Co, 281 Mich App 429, 444; 761 NW2d 846 (2008) (emphasis added). Other than the referenced list on the cover page and signature page, GEICO Casualty is the only named insurer throughout plaintiff’s insurance contract. Moreover, the referenced list of GEICO companies is simply a list of affiliated companies. There is no indication on that document that a contractual relationship exists between plaintiff and the companies listed on the cover page and signature page. A fair reading of plaintiff’s entire insurance contract does not result in conflicting interpretations with regard to plaintiff’s actual insurer on the date of the accident, and therefore, the insurance contract must be enforced as written. The plain language of plaintiff’s insurance contract unambiguously demonstrates that GEICO Casualty was plaintiff’s sole insurer on the date of the accident.
