Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #230956; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Markey and Meter; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict declaring that Titan must defend and indemnify its insured in an automobile negligence action, in spite of Titan’s contention that the injuries were the result of its insured intending and expecting to collide her vehicle with the injured person.
The main issue at trial was whether the insured intended and expected to collide her vehicle into the other party’s vehicle. The insurance policy specifically excluded coverage for any person “intentionally causing bodily injury or property damage.”
The Court of Appeals rejected Titan’s argument that it was entitled to summary disposition. The court held that summary disposition is rarely appropriate in cases involving questions of credibility, intent or state of mind. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the court held that the trial court did not err by denying Titan’s motion for summary disposition, because there was contradictory evidence presented regarding whether the insured intended and expected to collide her vehicle with that of the other party.
