Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #271771; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Neff, and Hoekstra; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant State Farm, finding that because plaintiff’s son was a named excluded person under plaintiff’s no-fault policy, he was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits.
While driving his mother’s truck, plaintiff Craig Veaucasovic was seriously injured when he was struck by a hit-and-run driver. State Farm refused to provide benefits on the basis that Craig was a named excluded driver. Craig and his mother filed this action for uninsured benefits, as well as for collision coverage. The trial court agreed with State Farm that Craig was not entitled to uninsured benefits, because he was a named excluded driver. However, it determined that the owner was entitled to collision coverage.
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for State Farm on the issue regarding whether Craig was entitled to uninsured benefits based upon the plain language of the policy. This language provided that if a named excluded person operates a vehicle, all liability coverage is void. Based on this language and the fact Craig was listed as an excluded driver, the court determined Craig was not entitled to coverage. In this regard, the court noted:
“‘WARNING– WHEN A NAMED EXCLUDED PERSON OPERATES A VEHICLE ALL LIABILITY COVERAGE IS VOID – NO ONE IS INSURED.’. . . Craig is listed as an excluded driver on the declarations page. . . . the driver exclusion agreement, which must be read as part of the insurance policy, explicitly provides that liability, uninsured motor vehicle and physical damage coverages do not apply if Craig drives the insured’s vehicle.”
As to the issue regarding whether State Farm was required to pay for the damage to the motor vehicle, because the trial court was not provided with the entire policy to review, the Court of Appeals reversed in part and remanded in part for further proceedings.
