Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 251559; Published
Judges O’Connell, Markey and Talbot; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 266 Mich. App. 557, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition for defendant insurance company on plaintiff’s claim for uninsured benefits, finding that where the insurance on the vehicle in which he was a passenger when the accident occurred had lapsed, it was irrelevant under defendant’s uninsured motorist provision whether the driver of the vehicle was insured. The plaintiff in this case was injured in a one-vehicle accident while a passenger in a vehicle owned by one person and driven by another. The no-fault insurance on the vehicle had lapsed at the time of the accident so plaintiff sought uninsured motorist benefits under his mother’s no-fault policy with defendant. After defendant offered to settle for $11,000, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit. The trial court granted defendant summary disposition, finding that plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured benefits because the driver was insured. In reversing, the Court of Appeals noted that although the policy heading refers to “Uninsured Motorist,” the policy itself refers exclusively to whether the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident. In this regard, it stated:
“The plain language of the ‘uninsured motorist’ provision makes coverage contingent on whether the vehicle is insured, not on whether the driver is insured. Therefore, we will not insert the contingency on the insurance company’s behalf. The trial court erred when it ruled that the contract did not cover accidents in which the driver was insured and granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition on these grounds.”
The court then addressed an issue that was raised, but not decided, in the trial court: whether the driver’s policy was designed to insure the vehicle, even though the driver did not own the vehicle. The court determined that this is an issue that must be decided on remand. In this regard, the court explained:
“Nonetheless, we acknowledge that some car insurance policies are designed to cover a vehicle when, as here, the person they insure does not own it, but is merely driving it with the permission of the owner. Under these circumstances, the vehicle is insured under the driver’s policy at the time of the accident, and defendant would be entitled to summary disposition if the driver’s insurer pays the plaintiff’s claims. Other policies only insure the driver, however, and if Steele [the driver] were covered by such a policy here, then defendant would be bound by the contract’s terms to pay plaintiff’s claim and could pursue Steele under a subrogation theory. We mention this because a considerable dispute existed below regarding which of two potential car insurance policies covered Steele at the time of the accident, and the policies differ in their approach to special trips taken with the owner’s permission. Moreover, we note that, according to the policy’s plain language, defendant is presumably liable if Steele’s insurance company denies coverage. . . . Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
(Emphasis in original)
