Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Dobbelaere v Auto-Owners Insurance Company and Auto Club Insurance Association; (COA-PUB, 5/15/2007, RB #2886)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 270200 and 270275; Published
Judges Saad, Hoekstra, and Smolenski; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 275 Mich. App. 527, Link to Opinion courthouse image


STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Occupants [3114]

TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable


CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals determined that where an insurance company does not define the word “insured,” only the person who contracted for the insurance is an insured for purposes of priority under MCL 500.3114(4).

The plaintiff’s decedent, Seth Dobbelaere, II, was killed in a motor vehicle accident while riding in a motor vehicle driven by David Jones II. The vehicle was owned by Jones’ father and was uninsured. Dobbelaere had no personal injury protection insurance coverage and was not covered under a policy issued to a spouse or resident relative. Therefore, plaintiff sought survivor’s loss benefits from Auto-Owners, which insured a vehicle owned by Jones’ wife, Randie Jones.

After Auto-Owners failed to respond to plaintiff’s claim, the claim was assigned to Auto Club Insurance Association (ACIA) by the Assigned Claims Facility. ACIA refused to pay benefits, arguing that Auto-Owners was responsible for benefits under MCL 500.3114(4) as the insurer of David Jones and David Jones’ father through its policy with Randie Jones. Plaintiff sued the two insurers who both moved for summary disposition. The trial court denied the motions and the insurers appealed.

The Court of Appeals determined that ACIA was responsible for the plaintiff’s survivor’s loss benefits and affirmed summary disposition for Auto-Owners. In so finding, the court first noted that under MCL 500.3114(1), when an occupant of a motor vehicle is injured in a motor vehicle accident, the no-fault insurer within the person’s household is first in priority for payment of no-fault benefits. However, plaintiff’s decedent was without any no-fault coverage. In such cases, §3114(4) provides the order of priority. Under subsection (4), the injured person must first look to the insurer of the owner or registrant of the occupied vehicle and then to the insurer of the operator of the vehicle. Therefore, the issue was whether Auto-Owners was the insurer of the vehicle in which plaintiff’s decedent died. Neither the driver nor the owner were named insureds under the policy. However, ACIA argued that under Amerisure Insurance Company v Coleman, 274 Mich App 432 (2007) [Item No. 2862], since the owner and driver would be entitled to personal injury protection benefits as the spouse and resident relative of Randie Jones, they are also insureds under the policy. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, distinguishing the facts in Amerisure from the facts of this case because, in Amerisure, the word “insured” was defined as “you or any family member.” In this case, the Auto-Owners’ policy did not define the word insured and there was no language in the policy to indicate the parties to the contract intended to render anyone besides Randie Jones as the contractually insured person. In this regard, the court stated:

In Amerisure, [a]fter reasoning that MCL 500.3114(4)(a) did not apply because the vehicle’s owner was uninsured, this Court turned its analysis to whether the defendant insurer was the ‘insurer’ of the uncle for purposes of MCL 500.3114(4)(b). . . . Although the uncle’s spouse was the named insured under the policy, the section relating to no-fault coverage defined ‘insured’ as including ‘you or any family member.’. . . As a result, the Court concluded that the defendant insurer was the uncle’s ‘insurer’ for purposes of MCL 500.3114(b). . . . Unlike the policy at issue in Amerisure, the policy at issue here does not define who is an insured for purposes of the no-fault endorsement, and we are unable to discover anything within the plain language of the policy’s declaration or general verbiage to indicate an intent by the parties to that contract to render either David Jones or David Jones II a contractual insured. . . . Thus, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying AOIC’s motion for summary disposition because it was not the ‘insurer’ of either David Jones or David Jones II within the meaning of MCL 500.3114(4)(a) and (b).”


Michigan auto accident attorney Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit SinasDramis.com.

Copyright © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)

FacebookInstagram