Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #260963; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, O’Connell, and Kelly; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Canadian Accidents and Citizens
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a Canadian insurance company, with respect to a Canadian resident’s claim for “unidentified” motorist benefits.
The plaintiff in this case was injured while driving in Ingham County when she lost control of her vehicle. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was insured by defendant, a Canadian insurance company, under a policy which provided “unidentified” motorist benefits. In an earlier decision, the Court of Appeals determined the trial court improperly exercised personal jurisdiction over defendant with regard to the claim for unidentified motorist benefits. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case for consideration of whether the Ingham County Circuit Court could exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim for uninsured unidentified motorist benefits and whether the insurance contract required plaintiffs to bring their action in Ontario, Canada. In deciding these issues for defendant, the Court of Appeals first reiterated that the unidentified/uninsured motorist benefits were contractual in nature and not governed by the No-Fault Act. In this regard, the court stated:
“As we previously observed, unidentified/uninsured motorist benefits are purely contractual and not governed by Michigan’s no-fault act. Although it may be more convenient to litigate both claims in Michigan, plaintiff has not shown how her no-fault claim would be undermined by the trial court’s failure to decide the unidentified motorist claim.”
The court then determined that although the policy at issue provided that a matter “may be decided” by an Ontario court, this issue was moot, because Michigan courts do not have ancillary jurisdiction.
