Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #263288; Unpublished
Judges Talbot, White, and Wilder; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals upheld an exclusion in the Harleysville Lake States policy of insurance which excluded uninsured motorist benefits “while occupying an auto furnished by an ‘insured’ person’s employer and operated in the course of that person’s employment unless the auto is ‘your covered auto.’"
Plaintiff’s decedent in this case was killed in a motor vehicle accident while driving a vehicle owned by a company called Burleson, Collinson & Skelly, Inc. (BCS). That company, in turn, was a holding company which owned all of the stock of decedent’s employer, Baker & Collinson, Inc. (B&C). BCS operates as the holding company and owner of B&C and owned all of the assets used in the course of employment for B&C, including four motor vehicles used by B&C sales people.
In upholding the trial court determination that decedent’s insurance policy did not provide uninsured motorist coverage because of the exclusion, the court stated the question turned upon the determination of whether the vehicle was “furnished by” B&C, the decedent’s employer, when it was owned and insured by BCS and not B&C. The term “furnished” is defined by the dictionary to mean “to provide or supply.” According to the testimony, even though BCS owned the vehicle, the decedent was provided the vehicle in question for the purpose of driving primarily in his course of employment with B&C. All of the assets used by B&C and its employees were owned by BCS, the parent company. All BCS revenue was generated by payments from B&C and one other wholly owned subsidiary. Based upon these facts, the court concluded B&C controlled and thus furnished the vehicle in question to the decedent, and rejected plaintiff’s contention B&C could not have furnished the vehicle because it did not own the vehicle.
