Adams, et al v Liberty Mutual Group, Inc, et al (COA – UNP 7/27/2023; RB #4617)
Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #360876; Unpublished|
Judges Patel, Boonstra, and Rick; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEX:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEX:
Hit-and-Run Claims [Uninsured Motorist Benefits]
SUMMARY:
In this 2-1, unpublished, per curiam opinion (Boonstra, dissenting), the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing Plaintiff William Adams’s action for uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage against Defendant Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. (“Liberty Mutual”). The Court of Appeals held that Adams presented sufficient evidence to satisfy a provision in the UM endorsement to his policy with Liberty Mutual which required that, in order to claim UM coverage for a hit-and-run collision, the insured present ‘competent evidence [that the collision occurred] other than the testimony of a person making a claim under this or any similar coverage.’
William Adams was driving in Detroit when, according to him and his passengers, another vehicle ran a yield sign and crashed into them. Adams told police at the scene that the driver of the other vehicle exited her car after the collision, but then ran back to it and drove off once Adams asked whether she had insurance. A police report was completed which stated that Adams’s car sustained disabling damage at various points—even determining which point was impacted first—and two months later, Adams filed suit against Liberty Mutual for UM coverage. Liberty Mutual eventually moved for summary disposition, arguing that Adams had not satisfied a provision in the UM endorsement to his policy that required that, to qualify for UM coverage for a hit-and-run accident, the insured submit ‘competent evidence other than the testimony of a person making a claim under this or any similar coverage.’ In this case, Liberty Mutual argued, the only evidence in support of Adams’s claim that a collision occurred was his deposition testimony, his statements to police, and his statements to doctors at the hospital. Liberty Mutual argued that this was insufficient to trigger its obligations under the policy, and the trial court agreed, granting Liberty Mutual’s motion and stating, on the record, ‘I think anyone could have, you could have produced any kind of evidence that you though would create a question of fact, but nothing was produced.’
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition order, holding that the police report was sufficient to satisfy the subject policy provision. The trial court overlooked the fact that the responding officer set forth his independent opinion in the police report about how the collision occurred and verified the damage sustained by Adams’s vehicle. In other words, the officer’s statements in the police report constituted ‘competent evidence other than the testimony of a person making a claim under this or any similar coverage’ for purposes of the subject policy provision.
“Adams did present some independent evidence, however, which the trial court should have found sufficient to support his claim for benefits. That evidence is contained in the police report, which includes a description of the events leading to the accident as described to Officer Theut by Adams, as well as Officer Theut’s observations about the accident. While Adams’s description of the event is not enough on its own to support the claim because it is merely another version of his recollection of the accident, the trial court overlooked Officer Theut’s independent opinion about the accident and the extent of the damage to Adams’s vehicle. Officer Theut states that Adams was in a hit-and-run accident, which caused ‘Disabling Damage’ to his vehicle at points ‘06’ and ‘08,’ with the greatest area of damage occurring at point ‘06.’ The trial court erroneously disregarded these portions of the police report, and failed to address whether Officer Theut’s observations about the accident were sufficient to support Adams’s claim for benefits. Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that the police report creates a question of fact regarding whether Adams is entitled to uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits. Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting Liberty Mutual’s motion for summary disposition.”
Judge Boonstra dissented, arguing that the responding officer’s statements in the police report were not sufficient to satisfy the subject provision in Adams’s policy because the responding officer did not confirm that a collision occurred; he merely confirmed that there was damage to Adams’s vehicle.
