Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 341812; Unpublished
Judges O’Brien, Jansen, and Ronayne Krause; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision regarding a claim for uninsured motorist benefits after a three-vehicle accident, the Court of Appeals determined that Defendant USAA was entitled to reduce uninsured motorist benefits by any amount paid by either of the drivers involved in the accident. Plaintiff’s automobile policy provided that “[t]he amount payable for this Uninsured Motorist Coverage will be reduced by any amounts paid or payable for the same bodily injury,” and Plaintiff failed to show that the other drivers were individually responsible for different injuries.
Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident caused by two other vehicles—one that was directly involved, and uninsured, and a second that was only indirectly involved and insured through USAA. USAA offered its policy limits to plaintiffs, but plaintiffs did not accept. Instead, Plaintiffs sought UM benefits from their own insurer, Defendant Farm Bureau. Plaintiffs’ policy provided for UM benefits in the same amount offered by USAA. Farm Bureau denied payment of UM benefits, however, because the language in the policy entitled Farm Bureau to set off UM benefits “by any amounts paid or payable for the same bodily injury.” Farm Bureau argued that both the other drivers involved were responsible for the same injuries to Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs argued that the UM benefits were only applicable to their claims against the directly involved, uninsured driver, which were distinct from their claims against the USAA-insured driver. The trial court denied Farm Bureau’s motion, concluding that, “the current statutory scheme provides for several, rather than joint, liability . . . Inasmuch as the percentage of fault between the [separate] defendants has not yet been determined, the Court finds that Farm Bureau’s motion is premature.”
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court because Plaintiffs did not present any evidence that the two other drivers caused them to suffer separate injuries. In fact, the Court of Appeals said that the second driver did not make an impact with Plaintiffs vehicle at all. That driver was merely responsible for causing the first driver to collide with Plaintiffs vehicle in an act of road rage. Therefore, there was essentially no evidence to suggest that the second driver caused any distinct injuries.
There is no genuine issue of material fact that only one impact occurred, which was between plaintiffs and the Hana defendants. Plaintiffs failed to establish that they incurred divisible injuries based on the one impact with the Hana defendants, and therefore, the collision caused a single, indivisible injury, rendering an apportionment of fault irrelevant. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying Farm Bureau summary disposition because there was no genuine issue of material fact that the Hana defendants caused each plaintiff a single, indivisible injury because there was no impact between the vehicles of plaintiffs and Yax.
Therefore, the Court determined that the amount offered by USAA was not for any distinct injuries caused by its insured, but was rather the “same bodily injury” for which Plaintiffs sought UM benefits.
