Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #234806 and 234979; Unpublished
Judges Wilder, Fitzgerald and Zahra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contracts (Meaning and Intent)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals enforced “owned vehicle exclusions” in two separate motor vehicle policies covering certain relatives in the tortfeasor’s two households. As a result, only the coverage on the vehicle driven by the tortfeasor at the time of the collision was applicable to the claim. The tortfeasor in this case was a 16-year-old boy who had two separate households: one with his mother and one with his father. At the time of the accident, he was driving a vehicle owned by his father’s fiance’. The parties did not dispute the fact that the tortfeasor resided equally in the two households. In the father’s household, State Farm issued a policy with limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence. In the mother’s household, Mutual Service Insurance Company issued a policy with the same limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence. Both the State Farm policy and the Mutual Service policy had exclusions that essentially stated that coverages under those policies did not extend to the use of any vehicle which was owned by any resident of the household unless the vehicle was listed on the declaration sheet of that policy. The vehicle driven by the tortfeasor at the time of the accident was not listed under either the State Farm or Mutual Service policy. The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the law limits the members of a household to only those who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption and, instead, held that “the existence of a blood or marital relationship is not required to establish that individuals are residents of the same household.”
The court also held that coverage referred to as “broadened other car coverage” did not exist under the Mutual Service policy because, contrary to the requirements of this coverage, the declaration sheet did not contain any reference to this coverage or indicate that any premium had been paid for this additional coverage. Therefore, the court held there was insufficient evidence that this coverage had been purchased.
Finally, the court ruled that the “temporary substitute” provisions in the Mutual Service policy and the State Farm policy did not apply to the tortfeasor’s use of the accident vehicle for the reason that the vehicle the tortfeasor usually drove was not out of use “because of breakdown, repair, damage, or loss.” Rather, the tortfeasor was using the accident vehicle simply because it was “more reliable.” This was insufficient to invoke the “temporary substitute” provisions of the two policies.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the only liability coverage applicable to this claim was the coverage on the vehicle driven by the tortfeasor at the time of the accident, not other coverages in the tortfeasor’s two households
