Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 216773; Published
Judges Saad, Fitzgerald and O’Connell; unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 246 Mich. App. 607, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published opinion by Judge Saad, the Court of Appeals held that the $100,000 per person limit of damages in an auto insurance policy applied to the claims of two pedestrians killed by the insured under Farm Bureau’s policy, and that the $300,000 per occurrence limit was, by contract, “subject to” the per person limit.
In this case of first impression, the Court of Appeals held that the policy language unambiguously limits recovery to $100,000 for each decedent’s estate with the following language:
“The limit of such liability stated in the declarations as applicable to each occurrence is, subject to the above provision respecting each person.”
The Court of Appeals reviewed decisions from other jurisdictions and found that the overwhelming majority of states agree that a contradiction between per person and per occurrence liability limits is resolved by explicit policy language making the per occurrence limit subject to the per person limit. Because the policy language is unambiguous, the policy must be enforced as written.