Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 334977
Judges Talbot, Meter, and Tukel; written by Judge Talbot
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Physical Contact Requirement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 opinion written by Judge Talbot, the Court of Appeals analyzed the physical contact requirement of an uninsured motorist endorsement, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and ordered summary disposition in favor of the defendant, American Alternative Insurance Company (AAIC). The Court held that an uninsured pick-up truck did not cause discarded debris to make physical contact with plaintiff’s insured work vehicle. The plaintiff, a medical technician, admitted that his ambulance struck the stationary debris. Although he sustained injuries after colliding into the large pile property, this particular sequence of events did not satisfy the policy’s definition of a “hit-and-run.” Therefore, the Court found that defendant should have been awarded summary disposition.
The plaintiff in this single-vehicle accident, Jeremy Drouillard, was injured in the course of his employment while responding to a service call. He was the passenger in an ambulance traveling approximately 45 miles per hour in “lights and sirens mode” before it struck a pile of construction debris obstructing the roadway. Plaintiff sustained significant spinal injuries and was disabled from work.
Three bystanders witnessed a pick-up truck “dart” into the intersection. The rapid acceleration caused various construction supplies to fall from the bed of truck, land in the roadway, and block both traveling lanes. The ambulance struck the cast-off property less than one minute after the pick-up cleared the intersection.
Defendant issued the ambulance’s insurance policy. It contained an uninsured motorist endorsement stating that in an accident, the uninsured vehicle “must hit or cause an object to hit” plaintiff or a vehicle plaintiff is occupying. Defendant argued that no uninsured motor vehicle was involved in the accident and denied coverage. Plaintiff filed suit seeking recovery of uninsured motorist benefits. Defendant responded with a motion for summary disposition.
The primary issue before the court was whether defendant was entitled to summary disposition. The Court first rejected defendant’s contention that a hit-and-run motorist must have knowledge of the accident to satisfy the definition of “hit-and-run vehicle.” According to the Court, knowledge need not be assessed under these circumstances. Moreover, that determination would create a genuine issue of material fact, and summary disposition would be improper. “We find it unnecessary to determine whether the phrase “hit-and-run vehicle” requires knowledge of the accident on the part of the driver because assuming, without deciding, that knowledge is required, the trial court correctly concluded that questions of fact remained as to that issue.” Defendant’s reliance on the knowledge requirement under MCL §§ 257.617-19 was misplaced.
Next, the Court examined the insurance contract for ambiguities and found only one reasonable interpretation. According to the endorsement, direct physical contact with the uninsured vehicle was not required, and coverage would be afforded when an uninsured vehicle merely caused property to strike another vehicle. The Court then distinguished Dancey v Travelers Prop Cas Co, 288 Mich. App. 1, 7 (2010). It found Dancey instructive but not dispositive of the specific issue AAIC raised. Thus the trial court was not required to grant summary judgment.
The Court ultimately held that this accident was insufficient to satisfy the physical contact requirement. Plaintiff, his partner, and all eyewitnesses admitted that the ambulance struck the stationary debris in the roadway. But the “plain language of the contract provides uninsured motorist coverage to [plaintiff] only if the unidentified pickup truck caused an object to hit the insured ambulance, and not vice versa.” Therefore, the policy did not permit recovery in this instance.
The [uninsured] vehicle must hit, or cause an object to hit, [plaintiff], a covered ‘auto’ or a vehicle [plaintiff] is ‘occupying[.]’ ” Thus, coverage would be afforded in this case despite the absence of physical contact between the ambulance and pickup truck, as long as the pickup truck “cause[d] an object to hit” the ambulance.
