Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 197161; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Hood, and Hoekstra; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability Policy Exclusions for Owned and Non-Owned Vehicles [§3131]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the "owned automobile" and "additional automobile" provisions of Citizens Insurance Company's policy were not vague and ambiguous with regard to residual liability coverage for a vehicle not listed on the policy.
Plaintiff was injured when defendant Rosencrants, while driving an uninsured motor vehicle, caused an accident. The vehicle being driven by Rosencrants was co-owned by defendants Hein, with their names listed on the title. The Heins owned two other automobiles that were insured with Citizens, but the vehicle driven by Rosencrants was not listed on the Heins' policy with Citizens. Citizens refused to defend the Heins' on the ground that the vehicle involved was not covered by their policy. Plaintiffs claimed that the policy was vague and ambiguous with regard to coverage for this vehicle, and that the "owned automobile" and "additional automobile" language of the policy was inconsistent with common place meanings.
Affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that the policy contained specific definitions of the contested terms. Further, there was no dispute that the vehicle in question did not satisfy either of those definitions. The Court of Appeals held that a definition cannot be overlooked when it is contained in the definition section of the policy. An unambiguous policy will be enforced as written, even if it is "unartfully worded' or "clumsily arranged.'' Further, the actual policyholders in this case, the Heins, did not believe that the policy covered the vehicle in question.
