Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #225493; Published
Judges Murphy, Neff and Hoekstra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 249 Mich. App. 457, 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 published opinion by Judge Neff regarding a matter of first impression concerning uninsured motorist coverage, the Court of Appeals unanimously held that plaintiff’s uninsured motorist coverage was “portable” and therefore, followed the insured person as opposed to being limited solely to accidents involving the insured vehicle. In this case, the plaintiff was injured by an uninsured motorist while plaintiff was driving a vehicle owned by her employer. The employer’s vehicle did not carry uninsured motorist coverage. However, defendant Citizens had issued a policy to plaintiff’s husband covering his landscaping business (a d/b/a) which policy did carry uninsured motorist coverage with regard to a 1995 Ford pickup truck. Defendant Citizens denied plaintiff’s claim for no-fault coverage because plaintiff was not injured while driving the 1995 Ford pickup. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition and the Court of Appeals reversed.
In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that, because uninsured motorist coverage was no longer statutorily mandated, the issue of whether the coverage was portable or confined solely to the listed vehicle, was a matter that should be determined by the policy language. The court then analyzed the uninsured motorist coverage endorsement in defendant’s policy and concluded that it was a standard endorsement that unambiguously extended coverage to the named insured and any family members who suffered damage as a result of the operation of an uninsured motor vehicle. The policy contained an “owned vehicle exclusion” which would exclude coverage if the injury occurred while a family member was occupying a family vehicle not specifically covered. However, this “owned vehicle exclusion” did not apply because the plaintiff was occupying the vehicle owned by her employer when it was struck by the uninsured motorist. Given the clear language of the policy, the Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument that the Declaration Sheet, by listing only the 1995 Ford pickup as insured with uninsured motorist coverage, altered the coverage extended by the policy. In this regard, the court held:
“Reading the definitions and exclusions to the uninsured motorist coverage of the policy, we find that it unambiguously provides coverage in circumstances beyond those involving the covered auto, including the accident at issue. Under the definition of an ‘insured,’ the policy specifically limits liability for persons other than the named insured and family members to anyone ‘occupying’ a covered ‘auto’ or a temporary substitute for a covered ‘auto.’ If the policy contemplated uninsured motorist liability only when the claim involved the covered auto, as defendant contends, it would be unnecessary to otherwise limit liability for guests to those occupying the covered auto.... Clearly, the policy was intended to follow the named insured and family members when they were not occupying the covered auto and sustained injury from an uninsured motorist. Likewise, if the uninsured motorist coverage applied only when the covered auto was involved there would be no need for the ‘owned vehicle exclusion’ in part C, limiting liability in circumstances where the named insured or a family member was not occupying the covered automobile, but was in another owned vehicle that was not a covered auto under the policy.”
The Court of Appeals also referred to a recently decided Maryland case entitled Bushey v Northern Assurance Company of America, 362 Md 626; 766 A2d 598 (2001).
Finally, the Court of Appeals held that the portability of the uninsured motorist coverage was not affected by the fact that the policy listed plaintiff’s husband’s business as the named insured. Specifically, the named insured was identified as “Stoddard’s Lawn Shapers, Tim Stoddard, DBA.” The court held that:
“It is undisputed that the business is a sole proprietorship, owned by Tim Stoddard. The policy classifies the insured as an ‘individual’ on the Common Policy Declaration as well as the Schedule of Coverages and Covered Autos. Even though the policy is a commercial automobile policy issued to a sole proprietorship, we conclude that the policy language defining an insured as a ‘family member’ is applicable and operates to provide coverage to plaintiff. Under Michigan law, the term ‘individual’ is recognized as designating a natural person and not including business entities such as corporations.”
