Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 208700; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, Markman, and O'Connell; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Underinsured Motorist Coverage
Uninsured Motorist Benefits
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant Hastings Mutual regarding plaintiff s claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits on the basis that an "owned vehicle exclusion" contained in the policy was enforceable.
Plaintiff’s decedent, Randy Viau, was killed while riding a motorcycle that was not explicitly covered by his business automobile insurance policy issued by defendant. Defendant insured four (4) other vehicles used by Viau in his business as a building contractor. Approximately a month before his accident, Viau purchased the motorcycle from an individual who signed and handed over the certificate of title, but did not complete the back of the title fully. Moreover, no application to transfer title was ever made to the Secretary of State. Viau paid the $3,400 purchase price listed on the back of the certificate of title and took possession of the motorcycle. In the subject accident, Viau was operating the motorcycle and was killed when it was broadsided by another vehicle that only carried $50,000 of liability coverage.
Viau's estate claimed uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits from defendant Hastings Mutual, which claim was denied by Hastings on the basis that Viau owned the motorcycle, and as a result, it was excluded by the owned vehicle exclusion set forth in the policy, which precludes coverage for any vehicle owned by the policyholder that is not a "covered auto" for uninsured motorist coverage. The trial court and the Court of Appeals held that the motorcycle was indeed owned by Viau, even though the certificate of title had not been completely filled out. In addition, it was undisputed that the motorcycle was not listed on the Declaration Sheet and, therefore, was not a "covered auto" under the definition of that term in the policy. Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s argument that Viau was driving a "temporary substitute vehicle" and therefore the vehicle was covered.
The court noted that the only reference to "temporary substitute" vehicles is in a separate provision of the policy defining "who was an insured." This section does not affect the enforcement of the owned vehicle exclusion, nor does it render a temporary substitute vehicle to be a "covered auto" for purposes of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. The court noted that the fact arguments could be made that the interplay between the various sections in this policy did not "make sense,” the court concluded that the language was clear and unambiguous and therefore it was enforceable. Accordingly, uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits were not recoverable under the owned vehicle exclusion and the covered auto definition.
