Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 347562; Unpublished
Judges Riordan, Fort Hood, and Swartzle; Per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for uninsured-motorist coverage under both the plaintiff’s primary automobile insurance policy and an umbrella policy. The Court of Appeals held that the motorcycle the decedent was driving at the time of the collision was an excluded “motor vehicle” under the endorsements section of the plaintiff’s UM and UIM policy. Additionally, the Court held that the plaintiff was precluded from recovering UM coverage under the umbrella policy because the umbrella policy contained an exclusion “precluding UM and UIM coverage unless an endorsement is added to the umbrella policy.”
Terry Holland was driving his motorcycle when he was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle. Holland died as a result of the collision, and his wife, Linda Holland, as personal representative of his estate, sought to recover uninsured motorist coverage under her automobile insurance policy with Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, as well as an umbrella policy with Citizens. The trial court ultimately granted summary disposition in Citizens’ favor, holding that, at the time of the collision, Terry Holland “was occupying a motor vehicle that he owned but that was not insured under the primary policy,” and that the language of the policy therefore precluded Plaintiff from recovering UM benefits. Additionally, the trial court held that Plaintiff was precluded from recovering UM coverage under the umbrella policy because the umbrella policy contained “an exclusion precluding UM and UIM coverage unless an endorsement is added to the umbrella policy.” Because Plaintiff failed to add such an endorsement, Plaintiff’s claim for UM coverage under the umbrella policy failed.
On appeal, Linda Holland argued that the trial court erred in determining that an exclusion in the UM and UIM endorsements precluded her from recovering benefits under her policy with Citizens. The endorsements read, in pertinent part:
A. We do not provide Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage for “bodily injury” sustained:
1. By an “insured” while “occupying”, or when struck by, any motor vehicle owned by that “insured” which is not insured for this coverage under this policy. This includes a trailer of any type used with that vehicle.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the phrase “motor vehicles” in the endorsements included motorcycles, and that Plaintiff’s claim for UM coverage under the policy with Citizens was therefore precluded because Terry Holland was driving a motorcycle that he owned at the time of the collision. In so holding, the Court of Appeals relied on its prior decisions in Bianchi v. Auto Club of Mich., 437 Mich 65 (1991) and Heath v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 255 Mich. App. 217 (2002).
The UM and UIM endorsements in the primary policy specifically exclude coverage for injuries sustained by the insured “while occupying . . . a motor vehicle owned by that insured which is not insured for this coverage under this policy.” The term “motor vehicle” is not defined in the policy and, therefore, the term is defined in accordance with its commonly used meaning. Cavalier Mfg Co, 222 Mich App at 94. In granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, the trial court reasoned that in Bianchi v Auto Club of Mich, 437 Mich 65, 71; 467 NW2d 17 (1991), the Michigan Supreme Court held that motorcycles fall within the definition of a “motor vehicle.” In Bianchi, the Court interpreted an exclusion to UIM coverage for “bodily injury sustained by an insured person: while occupying a motor vehicle which is owned by you or a relative unless that motor vehicle . . . is the vehicle described on the Declarations Certificate.” Id. at 69. Unlike the policy in this case, the policy at issue in Bianchi specifically defined a “motor vehicle” as “a land motor vehicle or trailer, requiring vehicle registration.” Id. at 68. The policy excluded other types of vehicles from the definition, but did not mention motorcycles. Id. at 68- 69. The Court held that “[a] motorcycle is a motor vehicle in both the common sense and the dictionary sense of the term, it is operated on land, and it is required to be registered.” Id. at 71. In light of Bianchi, the trial court concluded that the term “motor vehicle” included a motorcycle, and the policy exclusions applied.
In addition, this Court’s opinion in Heath v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 255 Mich App 217, 221-220; 659 NW2d 698 (2002), is instructive. In Heath, this Court analyzed a policy exclusion that used the term “motor vehicle” but did not define it. In Heath, the plaintiff was involved in an accident while driving his uninsured motorcycle and sought UM coverage under his automobile no-fault policy. Id. at 219. The policy excluded coverage “for bodily injury to an insured: while occupying a motor vehicle owned by or leased to you, your spouse or any relative if it is not insured for this coverage under this policy,” but the policy did not define the term “motor vehicle.” Id. This Court reasoned that “[t]he undefined term “motor vehicle,” when given its common sense, ordinary meaning, includes a motorcycle,” and held that “[t]he policy unambiguously excluded coverage for this accident.” Id. at 220.
Like in Heath, the exclusion at issue in this case does not define the term “motor vehicle.” Decedent, who was driving a motorcycle that he owned, was involved in an accident. Plaintiff sought benefits from defendants, who provided no-fault insurance for other vehicles plaintiff owned, but not for the motorcycle. Although the primary policy does not define the term “motor vehicle,” both Bianchi and Heath support the conclusion that the undefined term ‘motor vehicle,’ when given its common sense, ordinary meaning, includes a motorcycle. Therefore, the trial court properly held that the exclusion in the UM and UIM endorsement precludes plaintiff from recovering benefits.
The Court of Appeals further held that the Plaintiff was barred from recovering UM benefits under the umbrella policy, because of an exclusion provision in the umbrella policy which provided, “Any claim for No-Fault benefits. Any claim for Uninsured Motorists, Underinsured Motorists, Uninsured Watercraft, or Underinsured Watercraft coverage unless an endorsement is added to this Policy to provide such coverage.” Because Linda Holland failed to add any such endorsement to the umbrella policy, Plaintiff was precluded from recovering UM benefits under it.
