Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #219235; Unpublished
Judges Bandstra, Griffin and Collins; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals held that State Farm was not obligated to provide uninsured motorist benefits to a person injured in a rear-end collision when struck by a van operated by a driver excluded from coverage under the vehicle owner’s insurance. Because the driver was insured under his own policy for his own liability, there was insurance coverage for the injured person’s claims, and therefore, uninsured motorist benefits did not apply.
The accident occurred when the defendant was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Gregory Thorton, who was operating a vehicle owned by his parents. Gregory was excluded as a driver on his parents’ policy. However, Gregory had his own automobile insurance policy which provided liability coverage up to $20,000 for bodily injury. Judgment was entered in favor of defendant for $20,000, pursuant to a mutually accepted mediation evaluation as to Gregory Thorton. Defendant then sought damages from her own uninsured motorist coverage based upon the unsatisfied liability against the owners of the vehicle. The trial court determined that the van driven by Thorton did not fall within the uninsured motorist policy definition of an uninsured motor vehicle. The policy language provided for payment of damages for “bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of any uninsured motor vehicle. The bodily injury must be caused by an accident arising out of the operation, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle.”
Defendant claimed that the phrase “ownership, maintenance or use” should be interpreted in the disjunctive sense, so that the absence of any one of these three forms of insurance would render a vehicle “uninsured” within the meaning of the policy. State Farm contended that a conjunctive interpretation of the phrase was required, in which case, coverage would exist only where the vehicle’s ownership, maintenance and use were each uninsured at the time of the accident.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the policy language did not provide coverage under either interpretation. In the instant case, the van driven by Thorton at the time of the accident was in fact insured by its owners. Although Thorton was excluded from coverage under that policy, his liability for use of the vehicle was covered under his own policy. Accordingly, the vehicle was not uninsured within the meaning of the policy.
