Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 336483; Unpublished
Judges Swartzle, Markey, and Ronayne Krause; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
500.3108 General/Miscellaneous
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues
SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam decision (with Justice Swartzle dissenting), the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that a question of fact existed as to whether the deceased Plaintiff was barred from recovering PIP benefits under her husband’s automobile insurance policy because of a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for any relatives “residing primarily” in his household. The Court found that the Plaintiff was barred, however, from recovering benefits under an umbrella policy issued to her husband because of a provision that excluded coverage for any of his family members who were residents of his household. These seemingly contradictory determinations both hinged on the specific language found in each provision.
Mari Zimmerman-Thompson and her husband Christopher Thompson were both killed in an automobile crash, with Christopher being the named insured under both an insurance policy and an umbrella policy from defendant United Services Automobile Association (USAA). Both he and Mari were listed as operators of the covered vehicles, and both policies had exclusion provisions, which United Services Automobile Association invoked in refusing to provide liability coverage to Mari’s estate.
The Court of Appeals described the exclusion provisions as follows:
Very generally, the Policy excluded coverage for bodily injury to a relative who “resides primarily” in the covered person’s household; and the Umbrella excluded coverage for injury sustained by an “insured,” which was defined to include a family member who was a “resident” of the insured’s household. Plaintiff asserted that Mari was not subject to these exclusions because she did not primarily reside within Christopher’s household. The evidence presented in the trial court indicated that Mari and Christopher, who had each been married previously, continued to own separate houses. Mari owned a house located on Stoneham Road (“the Stoneham house”), and Christopher owned a house on Gleaner Road (“the Gleaner house”). Plaintiff alleged that Mari resided primarily in the Stoneham house, rather than the Gleaner house, so she was not excluded from coverage under the Policy and the Umbrella.
Both parties filed motions for summary disposition; both were denied by the trial court, which concluded that the contractual language was ambiguous and a matter for the trier of fact to decide.
As to the insurance policy, the Court of Appeals determined that a question of fact existed as to whether Mari resided at Christopher’s household “for more than merely a bare majority of her time,” in which case she would qualify as a relative who “resided primarily” in his home, and in which case she would be barred from recovery because of that exclusion the policy.
The umbrella policy’s “resident” exclusion was worded differently, however, and the Court determined that, as to the Umbrella policy, USAA was entitled to judgement as a matter of law, reasoning:
It is not seriously disputable on this record that Mari was the spouse of Christopher; that Mari lived in the same house as Christopher for a non-trivial percentage of her time; and when Mari stayed elsewhere, she had “legitimate reasons” for doing so. Mari clearly did not merely stay in Christopher’s house. The Umbrella plainly excludes relevant coverage for “any insured.” The Umbrella defines an “insured” as “You and any family member.” Pursuant to the plain and unambiguous terms of the Umbrella, Mari would constitute an “insured” under both the definition of “you” and the definition of “family member” by virtue of being a spouse who resided in the same household as Christopher.
Justice Swartzle dissented, arguing that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to where Mari primarily resided: with Christopher, as opposed to the home she owned separately.
