Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #289719; Unpublished
Judges Meter, Murray, and Beckering
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits - Physical Contact Requirement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under her policy with ACIA when she sustained injury as a result of her vehicle being run off the road by an unidentified vehicle, but where there was no direct physical contact between plaintiff’s vehicle and that other vehicle. The only thing that came into contact with plaintiff’s vehicle were some rocks and debris kicked up by the unidentified vehicle. Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist policy provided for the payment of benefits where the injury arises out of a “hit-and-run” motor vehicle. The policy further defined a hit-and-run vehicle as one “which makes direct physical contact with . . . you or a resident relative . . . or a motor vehicle which an insured person is occupying.” The Court of Appeals held that the phrase “direct physical contact” requires that there be actual contact with the other vehicle as opposed to indirect contact with physical objects that an unidentified vehicle propelled into plaintiff’s vehicle. In so holding, the Court of Appeals distinguished earlier case law that had permitted recovery of uninsured motorist benefits in situations involving propelled objects where the policy language required only “physical contact.” In contrast to those cases, the plaintiff’s policy with ACIA requires “direct physical contact” not merely “physical contact.” Therefore, the policy language was not satisfied where the hit-and-run vehicle propelled objects into the plaintiff’s vehicle but did not actually make contact with the plaintiff’s vehicle.
