Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #248419; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, Jansen, and Bandstra; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court determination that an “extension of coverage” in the liability coverage of Auto-Owners’ policy meant that a passenger vehicle owned by Wieczorek’s employer, Motor City Electric Company, and operated by Wieczorek in the course of his employment, required Auto-Owners to provide a defense and coverage to Wieczorek. The subject language under the liability coverage portion of the policy purported to extend coverage “to an automobile . . . not: (1) owned by or furnished or available for regular use to you . . . .” The policy further provided coverage was not extended to “(1) the owner of the automobile. . . . (2) an automobile used in your business or occupation . . . unless it is: (a) a private passenger automobile; and used by you.”
There was no dispute in this case that the vehicle in question was owned by Wieczorek’s employer, that it was regularly made available to him, and that he was driving it within the scope of his employment. The trial court interpreted the above language to mean coverage was extended to Wieczorek because the policy excluded vehicles from coverage when used in one’s business, except for “private passenger automobiles.” The Court of Appeals rejected Auto-Owners’ arguments that the non-owned vehicle language of the policy does not provide liability coverage for automobiles “not owned by, and which are furnished or available for regular use to” the insured. In so holding, the court stated:
“In fact, the passage extends coverage to automobiles that do not meet certain criteria, then lists three, set off by ‘or.’ This, for present purposes, indicates that coverage is extended to an automobile not owned by Wieczorek, or not furnished to Wieczorek, or not available for Wieczorek’s regular use, subject to the exceptions that follow.
The car in question was both furnished to Wieczorek and made available for his regular use, and so those terms do not extend coverage to him. But Wieczorek did not own the car, which triggers coverage under the first of the three terms, subject to the exceptions that follow. Bearing on this issue is subection 1c(2), ‘We do not cover ... an automobile used in your business or occupation ... unless it is ... a private passenger automobile ... used by you....’ Thus coverage is initially extended because Wieczorek did not own the vehicle involved in the accident; coverage is then withdrawn because the car was used in his occupation; coverage is then restored because the car was indeed a private passenger automobile used by Wieczorek.
Although the contract language in dispute was not entirely clear, we are satisfied, on review de novo, that the trial court properly resolved the ambiguity in favor of coverage.”
(emphasis in original)
