Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 297590; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Sawyer, and Beckering; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of Auto-Owners Insurance Company on the issue of whether Auto-Owners was responsible to provide the plaintiff uninsured motorist benefits under his mother’s policy of insurance through Auto-Owners Insurance Company.
The plaintiff in this case was a pedestrian when he was struck by an uninsured motorist. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff lived with his mother, who was insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by Auto-Owners. Under the mother’s insurance policy, uninsured motorist coverage extended to any relative who resided with the insured and did not own an automobile.
There is no dispute that shortly before the accident, the plaintiff purchased a 1995 Buick Riviera. However, the plaintiff argued that the Buick Riviera should not be considered an automobile for insurance policy purposes, because, at the time of the accident, the Buick Riviera was not functional and could not be operated.
The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the basis that the terms “operable” and “function” are not required under the definition of an automobile in the subject insurance policy, and that the plaintiff ultimately failed to show that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether he owned the 1995 Buick Riviera at the time of the accident.
