Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 344875; Unpublished
Judges Boonstra, Meter, and Fort Hood; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this action for underinsured motorist benefits, the Court of Appeals determined that an injured moped rider was not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits from her insurer because of a provision in her policy that excluded “any person occupying or struck by a motor vehicle owned by you or a relative, other than a covered automobile [from recovering underinsured motorist benefits]” from coverage. The Court adopted the general definition of the term “motor vehicle” to interpret the exclusion provision, not the No-Fault Act’s definition.
Plaintiff was injured while traveling on a moped and subsequently sought underinsured motorist coverage under her mother’s policy with Defendant Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company. Defendant moved for summary disposition, “arguing that the insurance policy excluded plaintiff from underinsure-motorist coverage because he was occupying a motor vehicle that was owned by a policyholder, but for which coverage was not sought.” Only two vehicles were covered under the policy, neither of which was the moped.
The Court of Appeals determined: (1) that the moped was a motor vehicle; (2) that Plaintiff was occupying the moped at the time of the accident; and (3) that the moped was not a covered automobile under the policy. Accordingly, the Court Stated:
Accordingly, by riding “upon” the moped, plaintiff was occupying that vehicle within the plain meaning of the policy. As to the latter question, the underinsured-motorist section defines “covered automobile” in pertinent part to mean “an automobile described in the Declarations to which the Automobile Liability coverage of this policy applies and for which a specific premium is charged.” As previously mentioned, the moped was not listed in the policy declarations. Thus, the moped does not qualify as a “covered automobile.” Therefore, this case turns on whether the moped constitutes a “motor vehicle” as that term is used in the policy exclusion. Motor vehicle is not defined in the underinsured-motorist sections of the policy or its endorsement. Rather, the general-definitions section of the policy provides that “ ’MOTOR VEHICLE’ means a land motor vehicle designed for use mainly on public roads.”8 Plaintiff does not argue that the moped was not a land vehicle designed for use on public roads. Indeed, plaintiff was injured while riding the moped on a public road.9 In fact, plaintiff does not even address this definition in his brief on appeal. It would appear that this Court’s analysis could end here. Nonetheless, plaintiff provides this Court with several contrary definitions of “motor vehicle” and argues that these definitions indicate that the coverage exception is ambiguous. First, plaintiff argues that the exception is ambiguous because an endorsement to the PIP-coverage section defines motor vehicle as being limited to vehicles with “more than two wheels.”10 We disagree. As noted previously, the general definitions apply throughout the policy. The PIP-coverage endorsement applies only “[w]ith respect to the coverage provided by this endorsement,” meaning the PIP provisions of the policy. Moreover, the endorsement provides that its “ADDITIONAL DEFINITION” for motor vehicle applies only when it is “used in reference to this insurance,” again meaning in reference to the PIP provisions of the policy. Thus, there is nothing in the PIP endorsement that suggests that its definitions apply to underinsured-motorist coverage and therefore nothing in the endorsement from which we can find any relevant ambiguity.
