Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #265794; Unpublished
Judges Meter, Hoekstra, and Markey; 2-1 (Judge Markey concurring); per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Underinsured Motorist Benefits: Underinsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals found that defendant was not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits under an endorsement covering a vehicle owned by a passenger in her vehicle because defendant’s vehicle was not being used by the passenger as a substitute or temporary vehicle for the passenger’s vehicle.
The fatal accident at issue in this case occurred when Brian Taylor gave Robert Woodcock a ride in Danielle Taylor’s Bonneville to a service station in order to pick up Woodcock’s Cadillac which was being repaired. The Cadillac was insured under a policy issued to Woodcock’s company by Employers Mutual Casualty Company which contained a $500,000 underinsured motorist endorsement (UIM). Danielle Taylor claimed she was entitled to recover UIM benefits for Brian’s death from Employers Mutual, arguing that when Brian gave Woodcock a ride, the Bonneville became Woodcock’s substitute vehicle. Under the policy, an insured is “anyone occupying a covered auto or a temporary substitute for a covered auto.” The trial court disagreed and granted Woodcock’s Estate summary disposition. The Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed. In so holding, the court noted there was no evidence Woodcock had unlimited access to the Bonneville, or could have used the Bonneville for all of his regularly scheduled activities. Therefore, the Bonneville did not replace the Cadillac and was not being used as a substitute for the Cadillac under the terms of the UIM endorsement. Accordingly, the trial court properly determined defendant was not entitled to UIM benefits under that policy. In this regard, the court stated:
“On appeal, defendant renews her assertion that she is entitled to UIM benefits under the EMCC policy because Taylor was occupying a ‘temporary substitute for a covered “auto”’ within the meaning of the UIM endorsement. On review de novo, we disagree. . . .
In this case, there is no indication that Woodcock had unlimited access to the Bonneville or could otherwise have used that vehicle for all of his regularly scheduled activities. The Bonneville did not, therefore, replace or otherwise assume the function of the Cadillac. . . . [W]e conclude that the Bonneville was not a ‘substitute’ for the Cadillac within the meaning of the UIM endorsement. Accordingly, because at the time of the accident Taylor occupied neither a ‘covered “auto”’ nor a ‘temporary substitute for a covered “auto,’” defendant is not entitled to the benefits provided for under the EMCC policy UIM endorsement. Summary disposition in favor of plaintiff was, therefore, proper.”
