Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 109765; Unpublished
Judges Danhof, Hood, and Marilyn Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Insurance Agents (Duty to Insured)
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that defendant insurance company did not improperly deny uninsured motorist coverage to plaintiff where, six years before the accident, it had sent a declaration sheet to plaintiff containing a notation that provided:
"Uninsured motorist coverage has been removed from your policy. It is available on request See enclosed letter for more information.”
The plaintiff acknowledged receiving the declaration, but did not remember reading about the deletion of uninsured motorist coverage. Further, plaintiff never contacted the defendant insurance company to request uninsured motorist coverage. The court found that there was no special relationship between the parties, such that the defendant had a duty to advise plaintiff about the adequacy of his insurance coverage. The court relied upon an earlier decision in Bruner v League General, 164 Mich App 28 (1987), and held that, "An insurance agent does not have an affirmative duty to advise the client regarding the adequacy of his or her coverage. The insured is obligated to read the policy and raise questions. A duty to advise may arise when a special relationship exists." The court further found that the deletion of uninsured motorist coverage was not ambiguous.