Midwest Mutual Insurance Company v Syakovich and Jackson; (COA-UNP, 12/28/1999; RB# 2118)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 206169; Unpublished    
Judges Cavanagh, Holbrook, Jr., and Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam   
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:  Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt    


STATUTORY INDEXING:  
Not Applicable

TOPICAL INDEXING:   
Uninsured Motorist Benefits   
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)   


CASE SUMMARY:   
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly ordered to arbitration a claim for uninsured motorist benefits arising from a motorcycle policy issued by Midwest to the owner of the motorcycle which was being operated by Syakovich when struck by an uninsured car owned by Jackson.

As a result of the accident, Syakovich received injuries for which he received personal injury protection benefits from his own personal automobile insurance carrier for approximately three years. Shortly before three years after the accident had occurred, Syakovich submitted a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under the motorcycle owner's motorcycle policy written by Midwest Mutual. Midwest then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that the claim by Syakovich was made too late under the "prompt notice" requirement of the policy, and as a consequence, Midwest's subrogation rights against Jackson had been prejudiced. The trial court ordered the entire matter to arbitration, including the issue of whether or not there was coverage under the policy.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court determination that the matter should be arbitrated, including the issue of whether or not the insured had prejudiced the insurance company by violating the "prompt notice” condition of the policy.

Syakovich was clearly an insured under a Midwest policy, and the arbitration language of the policy is likewise clear. Moreover, the court noted that "arbitrator clauses in contracts are liberally construed and any doubts about arbitrability should be resolved in favor of arbitration." Therefore, the trial court order determining that this matter should be arbitrated was affirmed.