Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 148141; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Kavanagh, and Livo; 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
Motor Vehicle Code (Civil Liability of Owner) (MCL 257.401)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals examined a no-fault policy, non-permissive user exclusion to third-party liability coverage. The court found the provision at issue to be ambiguously worded and, therefore, to be construed in favor of coverage.
The plaintiff was injured while driving an automobile insured by ACIA which was struck by a vehicle being driven by a person named David Masters. Masters car was titled and registered in the name of his wife, Ruby Masters, and insured by Citizens. David Masters resided with his wife, but did not have a valid driver's license. A liability claim was made by plaintiff with Citizens who denied coverage under the policy issued to McMaster pursuant to an exclusion from liability coverage of "any person using the vehicle without reasonable belief that the person is entitled to do so." Plaintiff then sought uninsured motorist coverage from her own insurance carrier, ACIA, but her claim was denied on the basis that Masters was insured under the Citizens policy. Plaintiff then filed suit against ACIA and, subsequently, Citizens was named by ACIA as a third-party defendant. In turn, Citizens named Ruby Masters as a fourth-party defendant. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of plaintiff and Citizens Insurance Company, holding that ACIA was obligated to provide uninsured motorist benefits because coverage to David Masters was excluded under the Citizens policy, and, therefore, he was uninsured.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court ruling and found that the term "any person," as used in the exclusion, was not ambiguous standing alone, but when viewed in light of other provisions of the policy,was unclear as to whether it included a "named assured." There was no dispute that David Masters was a named assured under the policy, and the issue was whether the exclusion at issue applied to him as an assured person. The court found that another exclusion contained in the policy applied to "any person including the named assured" which could lead to an interpretation that the term "any person" does not apply to the "named assured" unless explicitly stated. Therefore, the court found the exclusion to be ambiguous and inapplicable to Masters.
As Masters was covered by the Citizens policy, plaintiff was not entitled to receive uninsured motorist coverage under the ACIA policy.
