Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #237712; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, White and Hoekstra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contracts (Meaning and Intent)
Underinsured Motorist Coverage: Underinsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits under the language of the policy, because the policy stated that coverage was not available unless the limits of the underinsured tortfeasor’s coverage were less than the limits of the plaintiff’s underinsured motorist coverage and, in this case, the two were identical. The court noted that underinsured motorist coverage is not mandated by statute and, therefore, the scope and limitations of such coverage is governed by the language of the policy itself and by contract law. This policy language was not ambiguous, in that defendant’s policy “specifically refers to the ‘limit of liability’ for underinsured motorist coverage, and not to the amount of insurance proceeds actually available to injured insureds.” Accordingly, plaintiff’s reliance on the Court of Appeals decision in Wilkie v Auto-Owners was misplaced.
