Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 166183; Unpublished
Judges White, T. G. Kavanagh, and S. N. Andrews; Unanimous; Per Curium
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits:Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curium unpublished decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals interpreted language in an automobile policy issued to a corporate named insured that provided for uninsured motorist coverage where the covered person's injuries did not arise out of the use of the insured vehicle. The Court of Appeals held in this declaratory relief action that where the named insured was a corporate entity, its employee was not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under the policy language when he was struck and injured as a pedestrian by an uninsured motorist.
Plaintiff Auto Owners issued a policy of insurance, which included uninsured motorist coverage on a vehicle owned by Ebern Ensign. As part of his employment, Ensign had unrestricted use of a vehicle owned by his employer, The King Group, Inc., which was insured by defendant CNA under a policy that also provided uninsured motorist coverage. Ensign was walking across the road when he was struck and killed by an uninsured motorist. Plaintiff Auto Owners entered into a settlement with Ensign's estate and paid uninsured motorist benefits. Auto Owners then filed suit against CNA seeking contribution towards the settlement under the uninsured motorist portion of the CNA policy.
The CNA policy provided uninsured motorist coverage to "you," a term defined as the named insured, regardless of whether the insured vehicle was involved, but for "anyone else," uninsured motorist coverage only applied to those injured while occupying the insured vehicle. Under the CNA policy, the named insured was Ensign's employer, The King Group, Inc., a corporation.
The trial court held that the policy was ambiguous because obviously the corporation could not be injured by an uninsured motorist, and it was unclear as to whether the term "you" included employees of the named insured corporation. Therefore, the trial court construed the policy in favor of coverage.
The Court of Appeals reversed, noting that uninsured motorist coverage is not mandated by statute, and, therefore, coverage is controlled by the terms of the policy. Citing opinions of the appellate courts of the states of Washington, Tennessee and Oregon, the Court of Appeals found the CNA policy unambiguous and that the term "you" applied to the corporation only, and not its employees. The portable uninsured motorist coverage therefore did not apply to Ensign because he was not a named insured. The court reached this result even though effectively no one could receive the portable uninsured motorist coverage provided under this policy, where the corporation was the named insured.
