Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 258002; Published
Judges Borrello, Saad, and Wilder; unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 272 Mich. App. 50, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published opinion by Judge Saad, the Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff who was struck by an unidentified vehicle while he was riding a bicycle could not recover uninsured motorist benefits from defendant Auto-Owners, because the policy provided coverage for pedestrians or for an individual when occupying an automobile. Under the plain language of the policy, coverage is only available in those two limited situations.
The plaintiff in this case was injured when he was struck by an unidentified vehicle while riding his bike. After Auto-Owners denied uninsured benefits, plaintiff filed this action for breach of contract. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition, finding the term “pedestrian” ambiguous. The Court of Appeals reversed, noting that the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “pedestrian” is “a person who travels on foot.” Therefore, because plaintiff was not traveling on foot when the accident occurred, he was not a pedestrian and, therefore, not entitled to benefits. In this regard, the court stated:
“The plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘pedestrian’ as defined in Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1997), is ‘a person who goes or travels on foot.’ The term ‘pedestrian’ is not ambiguous, and, under its common meaning, plaintiff was not a pedestrian under the policy because he was riding a bicycle at the time of the accident.”
In response to plaintiff’s argument that the word “pedestrian” within the context of uninsured motorist coverage should be interpreted broadly, the court noted that when the No-Fault Act was amended, uninsured motorist coverage became optional. Since the coverage is now optional, rather than mandated by statute, the purpose of the No-Fault Act which is to broadly provide coverage for persons injured in automobile accidents without regard to fault, is inapplicable. In this regard, the court explained:
“Plaintiff maintains that, within the context of uninsured motorist coverage, ‘pedestrian’ should be interpreted broadly to include those individuals who are not in or operating motor vehicles. However, while uninsured motorist coverage had historically been broadly construed and considered portable when that coverage was mandated by statute, Stoddard v Citizens Ins Co of America, 249 Mich App 457, 460; 643 NW2d 265 (2002), that statutory mandate was repealed in 1973 after Michigan adopted no-fault insurance. Thus, because the Legislature enacted the no-fault act and elected not to require uninsured motorist coverage, parties are now free to contract as they see fit. Therefore, the purpose of the no-fault act, which is to broadly provide coverage for those injured in motor vehicle accidents without regard to fault, Griffith v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 472 Mich 521, 543; 697 NW2d 895 (2005), does not also apply to uninsured motorist policies.”
