Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #229490; Unpublished
Judges Bandstra, Hoekstra and O’Connell (Justice Bandstra concurring); per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Physical Contact Requirement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curiam unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the “physical contact” requirement of an uninsured motorist provision in an insurance policy was satisfied where there was tangible evidence of indirect physical contact between the hit-and-run vehicle and the insured’s vehicle, even though there was not direct contact between the hit-and-run vehicle and the insured vehicle.
Plaintiff was driving in Calhoun County when an unidentified vehicle struck a third vehicle which in turn struck plaintiff’s vehicle. The unidentified vehicle and plaintiff’s vehicle did not come into actual physical contact.
The insurance policy defined a hit-and-run automobile as follows:
“Hit-and-run automobile means an automobile which causes bodily injury to an insured arising out of physical contact of such automobile with the insured or with an automobile which the insured is occupying at the time of the accident.”
The trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals’ decision in Lord v Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 22 Mich App 669; 177 NW2d 653 (1970), in finding that coverage was available to the plaintiff because a “substantial physical nexus” existed between the unidentified vehicle and the object causing the injury to plaintiff. The court therefore found that the physical contact requirement of the uninsured motorist provision was satisfied.
The Court of Appeals in upholding the trial court’s decision, noted that the physical contact provision in uninsured motorist policy language is designed to reduce the possibility of fraud and to prevent “phantom vehicle claims.” Where there is tangible evidence of indirect physical contact between the hit-and-run vehicle and the insured’s vehicle, the possibility of fraud is significantly diminished. Cases have permitted recovery where the evidence discloses a “direct causal connection between the hit-and-run vehicle and the plaintiff’s vehicle and which connection carries through to the plaintiff’s vehicle by a continuous and contemporaneously transmitted force from the hit-and-run vehicle.” The Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly determined that there was such a substantial physical nexus and, therefore, affirmed.
