Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #292583; Unpublished
Judges Talbot, Meter, and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits - Physical Contact Requirement
Underinsured Motorist Coverage
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed when his vehicle went out of control, allegedly as a result of running over a large metallic object that was claimed to have fallen from an unidentified truck that had passed through the area shortly before the incident. Plaintiff sought benefits under decedent’s automobile policy with defendant which defined “uninsured automobile” to include “a hit and run” vehicle which, in turn, was defined as a vehicle whose owner or operator is unknown and “causes bodily injury by actual physical contact with the injured person or the automobile the injured person is occupying.” The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the basis there was insufficient evidence to establish that the debris (described as a large metal valve) which caused decedent’s vehicle to go out of control had fallen from a motor vehicle. In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals emphasized that the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and noted that there was a witness who saw a tow truck carrying a loose load that appeared to be carrying objects similar to the one that was found at the scene of plaintiff’s accident. In ruling that a fact question existed, the Court of Appeals stated, “plaintiff’s theory of a negligently loaded truck from which the valve fell is the most reasonable explanation for the presence of a large piece of industrial equipment on the road. There is no indication of any project in the area that would have put the valve to use, and the area in question was not accessible to pedestrians or other non-vehicular traffic. Defendant’s theory that someone might have elected to dispose of the valve at the side of the road is speculative indeed.” Therefore, summary disposition in favor of defendant was reversed.
