Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 169947 and 170277; Unpublished
Judges Marilyn Kelly, Corrigan, and Stephens; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals addressed a coverage dispute between multiple insurers arising out of a claim for third-party damages. Plaintiffs were injured when their motorcycle was struck by a 1981 Ford Escort driven by Brandy Merillat, and brought suit for third-party residual liability. Plaintiffs alleged that Brandy Merillat was in the course of her employment with the business owned by her father, David Merillat, at the time of the accident, and named the business as a defendant. Plaintiffs also sought a declaratory judgment as to whether defendants Frankenmuth and Farm Bureau owed coverage to Merillat. Defendant Frankenmuth was David Merillat's business automobile insurer, whereas Farm Bureau was David Merillat's family automobile insurer. The Merillats alleged that Brandy Merillat was operating the vehicle in the course of her employment with her father's business and that she resided in her father's household, thereby entitling her to coverage from both insurers. The trial court granted summary disposition against the insurance companies and held that coverage existed under the policies issued by Frankenmuth and Farm Bureau.
The Court of Appeals reversed and held that summary disposition was inappropriate because issues of fact existed. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that a question of fact was present as to whether Farm Bureau insured all of the private passenger vehicles owned by David Merillat. An issue of fact was also presented as to whether the automobile involved in the accident was a business automobile or a personal automobile, as David Merillat testified in his deposition that he never intended the vehicle to be used as a personal car. There was also an issue as to whether Brandy Merillat resided in her father's home at the time of the accident, where, contrary to the affidavit of David Merillat and Brandy Merillat, David Merillat testified in his deposition that Brandy Merillat was not living in his home.
The affidavits supporting the motion for summary disposition also addressed the issue of whether the accident vehicle was sold or traded by Brandy Merillat to her father before the accident. Although the Merillats each submitted an affidavit that the vehicle has been transferred, the Court of Appeals found that an issue of fact nonetheless existed, because where the truth of a material factual assertion of a moving party's affidavit depends upon the affiant's credibility, an issue of fact remains present. This is because the truth of the statement depends upon the affiant's credibility which is inherently suspect when the affiant is an interested party. Accordingly, summary disposition under these circumstances is inappropriate.
