Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #290684; Unpublished
Judges Meter, Murray, and Beckering; unanimous, per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits – Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Uninsured Motorist Benefits – Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court Order granting defendant insurance company summary disposition in this action to recover uninsured motorist benefits, finding that plaintiff’s failure to sue an uninsured driver did not violate defendant’s “do nothing” clause in its UIM provision.
In this action to recover UIM benefits, defendant insurer argued that the plaintiff’s failure to timely name and serve the uninsured driver violated the “do nothing” clause in its uninsured motorist provision. The provision at issue provides:
“In the event of any payment under this policy, we are entitled to all the rights of recovery that the insured person to whom payment was made has against another. That insured person must sign and deliver to us any legal papers relating to that recovery, do whatever else is necessary to help us exercise those rights, and do nothing after an accident or loss to prejudice our rights.”
(emphasis in original)
In reversing, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the provision prohibits affirmative acts that can impact the insured’s right to recovery. The court stated that the defendant’s interpretation of the provision would impose a duty on the insured to do “everything to preserve” the defendant’s rights. Such an interpretation, the court continued, would impermissibly revise the insurance contract. Moreover, the court continued, the policy language was unambiguous and, therefore, it could not expand the plain meaning of the contract. In this regard, the court stated:
“The ‘do nothing’ provision on which defendant relies prohibits affirmative acts that prejudice defendant’s rights of recovery. Other cases involving similar ‘do nothing’ provisions have involved insured persons who settle with a tortfeasor. . . . Defendant would have this Court interpret a directive to ‘do nothing . . . to prejudice’ defendant’s rights as a directive to ‘do everything to preserve’ them. That interpretation would be impermissible judicial revision of the insurance contract. A court may not expand the plain meaning of an insurance policy beyond the stated language of the policy when that language is unambiguous.”