Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 195955 and 196205; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Holbrook, and Doctoroff; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Reformation of Insurance Contracts
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant no-fault insurer was not obligated to provide coverage under a policy issued on an accident vehicle purchased after the subject accident. For an unknown reason, the insurer backdated the policy to five days prior to the accident, although it did not list the subject vehicle as being insured. Plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to first-party benefits and third-party liability coverage under the policy's definition of a "replacement" or "additional" vehicle. However, the plaintiff’s wife, who purchased the policy, testified at trial that she never intended to insure the accident vehicle when she purchased the policy subsequent to the collision. As neither party to the insurance contract intended coverage to apply for the accident at the time the policy was purchased, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition in favor of the insurer and denying coverage.
