Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 222295;
Judges McDonald, Smolenski and Kelly; Unanimous
MTLA File No. OP-1499-2. Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Physical Contact Requirement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff was not entitled to pursue her claim for uninsured motorist benefits because the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the policy requirement that there be “physical contact” between the uninsured/hit-and-run vehicle and the vehicle occupied by plaintiff. The court held that where physical contact is a requirement in an uninsured motorist policy, its purpose is to prevent fraudulent claims by permitting motorists who negligently lose control of their vehicle to blame it on an unknown vehicle that allegedly caused the loss of control. However, indirect physical contact may be sufficient to satisfy such a physical contact requirement if the insured’s vehicle strikes an object left in the roadway by the unidentified vehicle, or the unidentified vehicle propels an object into the insured’s vehicle. However, in the case at bar, there was no evidence whatsoever that there was any type of contact, direct or indirect, between plaintiff’s vehicle and the alleged uninsured/hit-and-run vehicle. Commenting on this lack of evidence, the court stated:
“In this case, plaintiff swerved to avoid an oncoming car and struck a curb. There is no physical nexus between that car and the curb. While the other car caused plaintiff to swerve and hit the curb, that alone is not sufficient absent physical contact between the vehicles. While plaintiff contends that there is a question of fact whether the other car struck her vehicle, she has not presented any documentary evidence to support her contention. Neither plaintiff nor her sister knew if the unidentified vehicle struck plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff has not offered any evidence, such as damage to the driver’s side of her vehicle, to permit an inference that the other vehicle struck her car. The driver behind the unidentified vehicle stated unequivocally that it did not strike plaintiff’s car. The police officer who investigated the accident saw no damage to plaintiff’s car apart from that caused by the curb. Based on the record presented, reasonable minds could not differ in concluding that there was no contact between the two cars and thus the trial court properly granted summary disposition.”
