Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #246388; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Griffin, and White; 2-1 (Judge Griffin dissenting); per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Notice and Statute of Limitations for Uninsured Motorist Coverage
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion regarding plaintiff’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, and held that because the policy provision requiring the person making a claim for uninsured motorist benefits to report a hit-and-run accident to the defendant within 30 days was ambiguous in the context of bodily injury causing death, summary disposition was inappropriate. In this case, plaintiff’s decedent was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver as he walked along side of the road. Approximately five months after the incident, decedent’s mother presented a claim for PIP benefits and uninsured motorist benefits to defendant State Farm. The uninsured motorist benefit endorsement contained a provision that a claimant must report a hit-and-run accident to the defendant within 30 days. Plaintiff did not comply with the 30 day notice provision and contended that this provision was ambiguous and, in cases of death, was impossible to satisfy. Therefore, it should be declared unenforceable and unconscionable. The court concluded the notice provision was ambiguous regarding who is referred to by the phrase “the person making the claim.” In this regard, the court stated:
“It is unclear whether the ‘person making claim’ must be the person who suffered bodily injury (or that person’s legal representative) or whether any person may be the person making claim. If the policy is interpreted as referring to one person, someone seeking to act in behalf of an insured, who suffered bodily injury resulting in death or incapacitation, could be jeopardizing coverage by providing notice before being certain that he or she will be appointed the insured’ legal representative. . . . Because the policy is ambiguous and not enforceable, the circuit court erred in granting defendant summary disposition. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
