Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 183123; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Fitzgerald, and Nelson; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the Court of Appeals ruled that an "owned vehicle exclusion" in the uninsured motorist section of the policy was ambiguous and unenforceable, thus entitling claimants to recover uninsured motorist benefits under the policy in question.
The claimants in this case, Tracey and Martha Loubert, were relatives who lived with Tracey's father, Joseph Loubert Tracey and Martha were injured while driving a motor vehicle owned by them, which was struck by an uninsured motorist. Tracey and Martha had their own insurance coverage and then sought additional uninsured motorist coverage from Partners Mutual Insurance Company, insurer of Joseph Loubert, claiming they were relatives insured under that policy. Partners Mutual denied coverage on the basis of an owned vehicle exclusion, which stated in pertinent part:
"We do not cover bodily injury to a person: (1) occupying, or struck by a motor vehicle owned by you or a relative for which insurance is not afforded under this part"
The trial court found this to be an ambiguous owned vehicle exclusion and the Court of Appeals agreed. The court stated:
"Here, we conclude that the language employed by [Partners Mutual] was ambiguous because it could be interpreted in at least two ways. First, it could be read to suggest that [Tracey and Martha] were not covered if they did not have insurance under that part, i.e., he uninsured motorist provision. However, as noted, that part did provide [Tracey and Martha] with coverage. Under that interpretation [Tracey and Martha] could reasonably have expected coverage. Granted, the exclusion also could be read as denying coverage, but the fact that two plausible interpretations exist leads to the conclusion that the language was ambiguous."
The court then referred to its earlier opinion in Auto Club Insurance Association v Page, 162 Mich App 664 (1987), as an example where an owned vehicle exclusion in an uninsured motorist coverage section was clear and unambiguous. In the Page case, the exclusion read, "This coverage does not apply to bodily injury sustained by an insured person: while occupying a motor vehicle which was owned by you or a relative unless that vehicle is your car." The policy defined "your car" as "the vehicle described on the Declaration Certificate." In approving this language, the court said:
"Thus, in Page, the policy clearly sets forth that coverage was not provided for vehicles not listed in the declaration certificate, i.e., for which no premium had been paid. We find this language more clear than the arguably circular definition employed by plaintiff."
