Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 205214; Published
Judges Saad, Hood, and Gribbs; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 232 Mich App 378; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Underinsured Motorist Coverage
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam published Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that an injured police officer was not an insured for purposes of underinsured motorist coverage provided to his employer, the Village of Lake Linden, because he did not satisfy the definition of an insured under the policy which defines an insured as "the person or organization shown as the named insured" or "any family member." Even though the definition of insured in the context of underinsured motorist bodily injury coverage becomes meaningless under the policy because a village cannot sustain bodily injury and does not have “family members," nevertheless, this does not create an ambiguity that would require reformation of the contract to require providing coverage to an injured employee.
The injury occurred when an on-duty police officer made a traffic stop, and in the process, was injured when the suspect attempted to drive away. After collecting the limits of the motorist's policy, the police officer sought underinsured benefits under an insurance policy provided to his employer, the Village of Lake Linden. The insurer denied the claim because the police officer was not an "insured" under the definition of the policy which would provide that an insured is "you or any family member." Under the definition section of the policy, "you" is defined as the "person or organization shown as the named insured" in the policy. The named insured in the policy was the Village of Lake Linden. Its employees were not listed as named insured.
In reversing the lower court finding of coverage, the Court of Appeals held that even though the wording of the policy in the context of underinsured motorist coverage benefits providing compensation for bodily injury is rendered meaningless because the insured, Village of Lake Linden, cannot sustain bodily injury, this does not create an ambiguity that would cause the court to reform the contract and provide coverage.
Reading the policy as a whole and giving ordinary and plain meaning to its terms, the language in the policy cannot be reasonably understood to include village employees and their families as insured. The term “you" in the policy refers only to the village. No mention is made of employees.
Even though this plain interpretation of this policy language renders the result that no one is entitled to receive underinsured coverage under that provision of the policy, the court held that this did not require that the policy language be constructed or reformed to include as insured village employees.
Several other jurisdictions have considered this same issue, and a majority have concluded that such language does not create an ambiguity. In the minority view cases, where coverage was found, the corporations involved were small, closely knit family corporations in which the courts identified the corporation with the individuals for purposes of the policy.
