Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 183192; Unpublished
Judges Corrigan, Taylor, and D.E. Johnston; 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In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a declaratory judgment action in which Wiedbrauk, operator of a taxicab company, claimed that Amerisure was obligated to defend and indemnify it in a third party tort action filed against Wiedbrauk. The issue was whether or not there was insurance coverage under a business automobile policy for an action in which an intoxicated taxicab passenger was taken by plaintiffs taxicab to a secluded spot on a dark and busy highway, allowed to disembark, and then sometime thereafter was fatally injured.
Plaintiff, the taxicab company sued by the decedent's estate, tendered defense of the lawsuit to Amerisure, pursuant to a business automobile policy which indicated that Amerisure would "pay all sums an insured legally must pay.. .because of bodily injury.. .to which the insurance applies, caused by an accident and resultingfrom the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto."
The Court of Appeals held that there was no dispute that the taxi company was an insured, that there was a bodily injury, and that a covered auto was involved, and that there was some sort of accident. The issue was whether the bodily injury arose from an accident which resulted from "ownership, maintenance or use" of plaintiffs covered taxicab.
The circuit court granted Amerisure's motion for summary disposition on the basis that plaintiff did not owe its passenger any actionable duty giving rise to tort liability. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that grant of summary disposition was premature, in that it is well established that the duty to defend is separate and distinct from the broader duty to indemnify.
The court further noted that the language of the insurance policy is distinguishable from the analogous language in the no-fault act under §3105(1), because the policy, in contrast to the no-fault statute, does not require that the bodily injury caused by accident result from the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle "as a motor vehicle." The language of the policy thus permissively affords more than the minimum coverage required by the no-fault act. Therefore, case law applying §3105(1) of the no-fault act is not applicable.
