Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 191489 and 191646; Unpublished
Judges Bandstra, Griffin, and Fitzgerald; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability Policy Exclusions for Business Use [§3131]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals interpreted the "business use exclusion" contained in a no-fault insurance policy and held that the policy language clearly conveyed that if the insured was driving a non-owned, non-private passenger vehicle in the course of any business of the insured, then the insurance company was absolved from responsibility for liability coverage.
In this case, Lautzenhiser, was an independent contractor not employed by the owner of the truck. He was, however, engaged in business at the time of the accident, on an out-of-town drywalling job, and the truck involved in the accident was supplied to him by the contractor. Lautzenhiser left the job site after performing some of the work, went to a restaurant for a meal, consumed alcohol, and then two or three hours later on the way back to the job, ran a stop sign and struck plaintiffs vehicle.
In seeking liability benefits under Auto Club's insurance policy, plaintiff claimed that Lautzenhiser had deviated sufficiently from his work mission to break the work nexus and was not in the course of business at the time of the accident. Auto Club claimed that under the no-fault insurance policy at issue, its business use exception applied, and where the insured was driving a non-owned, non-private passenger vehicle in the course of any business of the insured, then there was no coverage for plaintiffs claim.
In rejecting plaintiffs argument that the scope of the business use exclusion in the no-fault policy should be construed in reference to a test similar to the scope of employment test applied in workers' compensation cases, the Court of Appeals held that the focus for determining whether a business use exclusion applies must be "on how the non-owned car is being used" not on the insured's employment status. Here, a break for a meal was a necessary part of the "course of business" undertaken in an out-of-town employment situation. Here, the truck was being used in the course of business at the time of the accident, and the policy's business use exclusion applied.
