Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #254459; Unpublished
Judges Bandstra, Neff, and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Setoffs Applicable to Uninsured Motorist Cases
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals interpreted the contractual language of the uninsured motorist coverage contained in the defendant’s policy and held it permitted the insurer to reduce the amount of uninsured motorist benefits by the amount the plaintiff had received from the liability portion of the same policy.
Plaintiffs filed a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under the same insurance policy which had paid bodily injury coverage under that policy for injuries arising out of the same accident. The language of the insurance contract provided that damage payable under the uninsured coverage would be reduced as follows:
“Damage payable will be reduced by:
1. all amounts paid by the owner or operate of the vehicle of the uninsured auto or anyone else responsible. This includes all sums paid under the Bodily Injury Liability coverage of this or any other auto policy.”
In upholding the trial court determination the insurer was entitled to reduce the amount of the uninsured motorist coverage by the amount previously paid to the plaintiffs under the liability portion of the policy, the court rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the policy language was not clear. Relying on Wilkie v Auto Owners Insurance Company, 469 Mich 41 (2003), the court stated the contract language was clear and unambiguous. Further, the court noted that in Mead v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 202 Mich App 553 (1993), a similar provision providing for an “offset against the amount of monies that the plaintiffs received from other sources” had been upheld. Here, because defendant settled claims with two of the injured plaintiffs for amounts in excess of the policy limits under the bodily injury coverage of the policy, no benefits were available to the plaintiffs under the uninsured motorist portion of the same policy.
