Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #347507; Unpublished
Judges Stephens, O’Brien, and Redford; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in ruling that a moped qualified as a “motor vehicle” under plaintiff’s mother’s automobile insurance policy, and that plaintiff’s claim for UM benefits under the policy was therefore barred by an exclusion provision in the UM coverage section which excluded coverage for any insured injured “while occupying a motor vehicle or motorcycle owned by you or any resident relative if it is not your car or a newly acquired car.”
Ke’Shon Johnson, a minor, was severely injured as a result of being struck by a motor vehicle while driving his moped. The driver of the other vehicle was uninsured, and thus Johnson’s mother filed a claim for UM benefits with her automobile insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. State Farm denied Johnson’s mother’s claim, even though Johnson was an insured beneficiary under the policy, because of the aforementioned exclusion provision in the UM coverage section of the policy. In Johnson’s subsequent lawsuit against State Farm, the trial court ruled that the moped Johnson was riding at the time of the collision did, in fact, qualify as a “motor vehicle” under the exclusion provision, and thus granted summary disposition in State Farm’s favor.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition order in favor of State Farm, noting first that the State Farm policy did not define “motor vehicle” in the UM coverage section, and that it would therefore be “appropriate to consult a dictionary to define the term.” The two dictionaries the Court consulted, however, featured different definitions—one broad and one narrow. Since exclusionary clauses are to be strictly construed in favor of the insured, the Court adopted the narrower definition of “motor vehicle,” under which a moped would not qualify.
Applying a narrow definition of “motor vehicle” to the UM coverage section of the parties’ policy, we conclude that a moped is not a “motor vehicle.” Under the narrow definition, a “motor vehicle” is “an automobile, truck, bus, or similar motor-driven conveyance.” An automobile, truck, and bus all have large engines intended for highway use. A moped, on the other hand, has a small engine making it unsuitable for highway use, though it is sometimes driven on streets. Thus, we conclude that a moped is not a “motor vehicle” under the UM coverage section of the parties’ policy, and the trial court erred by interpreting the contract otherwise.
