Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 188694; Unpublished
Judges Markman, Smolenski, and Buth; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability Policy Exclusions for Owned and Non-Owned Vehicles [§3131]
Liability Exclusions Prohibiting Stacking of Coverages [§3131]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition which had been granted in favor of the injured claimants in a case in which the injured parties sought to obtain residual liability coverages under a vehicle not involved in the accident but which provided coverage on another vehicle owned by the driver of the accident vehicle.
In this claim for personal injury damages under the residual liability coverage of the applicable policies, the injured parties claimed that the applicable liability limit of $100,000 under a Ford Ranger automobile owned by the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident should be the available liability limit of coverage. The driver, McCollum, was driving a Mazda which was owned by his wife and insured by Farmers for a liability limit of $30,000. McCollum also owned a Ford Ranger at the time of the accident which was also insured by Farmers with a liability limit of $100,000. McCollum was the named insured on both insurance policies. The injured parties sought to recover under the higher liability limits of the Ranger policy. The trial court found that because of an ambiguity in the policy, coverage must be afforded to McCollum under the Ranger policy.
On appeal, Farmers argued that the trial court erred in finding that the Ranger policy provided coverage for liability incurred by McCollum while driving the Mazda.
The Ranger policy provided coverage for bodily injury resulting from the use by any person of an insured car. However, the policy explicitly defines an insured car to exclude any car not named in the policy, if that car is owned by the named insured or a family member. Because the Mazda is not named in the Ranger policy, and is owned by McCollum's wife, the Mazda is not an insured car under the Ranger policy.
The injured party claimed that a provision governing the amount of coverage afforded in cases where the named insured holds other applicable insurance (the anti-stacking clause) created ambiguity in the scope of coverage. The anti-stacking provision provided that: "if any applicable insurance, other than this policy, is issued to you by us or any other member of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, the total amount payable among all such policies shall not exceed the limits provided by the single policy with the highest limit." The Court of Appeals held that this anti-stacking provision did not create coverage under an otherwise inapplicable policy, and did not create any ambiguity in the contract nor did it conflict with or nullify the "family owned car" exclusion.
