Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #274409; Unpublished
Judges White, Saad, and Murray; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Underinsured Motorist Coverage: Underinsured Motorist Coverage in General
Underinsured Motorist Coverage: Underinsured Motorist Benefits in Motorcycle Accidents
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant on plaintiff’s claim for underinsured motorist coverage, finding that plaintiff failed to comply with the policy requirements.
The plaintiff in this case was injured when the motorcycle he was riding was hit by a car. Plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter to defendant Cincinnati Insurance Company demanding the $500,000 underinsurance limits contained in plaintiff’s no-fault policy. When defendant failed to respond, plaintiff filed this action for underinsurance benefits. The trial court granted defendant summary disposition on the basis that plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of the policy which provided that defendant would “pay under this coverage only if the limits of liability under any applicable ‘bodily injury’ liability bonds or policy have been exhausted by payments of judgments or settlements.” The policy also provided that, “no lawsuit . . . shall be brought . . . for the recovery of any claim under this part unless the ‘covered person’ has satisfied all the things that ‘covered person’ is required to do under this policy.”
In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that there is no issue that plaintiff failed to file suit against the at-fault driver. Therefore, the court found that summary disposition was proper. In this regard, the court stated:
“Here, there is no question that plaintiff had not even filed suit against the at-fault driver when he brought the present suit. Indeed, plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to satisfy the requirement of the policy. . . . [T]he trial court explicitly granted summary disposition because plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of the policy. . . . In sum, the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition because the plain language of the insurance policy required plaintiff to exhaust his claims against Carpenter and because plaintiff has failed to do so.”
