Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 161703; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Michael J. Kelly, and Hood; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Reformation of Insurance Contracts
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Arbitration of Uninsured Motorist Claims
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's reformation of a policy of automobile insurance to include uninsured motorist coverage after an accident had occurred giving rise to a claim for that type of coverage.
Plaintiff purchased automobile insurance from defendant in January, 1989. At the time, plaintiff informed his agent that he desired "full coverage" except for rental car coverage. When the plaintiff received his policy in the mail, he noticed that his name was mistakenly stated on the declaration sheet. The plaintiff telephoned the agent of defendant and informed the agent of the mistake, which was subsequently corrected. However, plaintiff did not otherwise read his insurance policy.
Four months later, plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident and sustained personal injuries. The driver of the other vehicle left the scene of the accident. Plaintiff thought that he had uninsured motorist coverage, because he had requested "full coverage" under his policy. When defendant refused to pay benefits, plaintiff filed suit, requesting declaratory relief as to his rights under the policy.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the case de novo. The court first noted that when construing an insurance policy, like any other contract, the intent of the parties control its interpretation. The court further held that as a matter of law, the mere failure to read an insurance policy does not prevent reformation of the contract based upon mutual mistake. Based upon these principles, the court found there was sufficient evidence to uphold the trial court's determination to reform the insurance policy to include the uninsured motorist coverage. The agent testified that errors were made on plaintiffs policy through her fault. The agent further testified that she would normally explain uninsured motorist coverage to plaintiff if he indicated he did not want it. The plaintiff, however, testified that he did not recall the agent asking him if he wanted uninsured motorist coverage, nor did the agent explain such coverage to him. Based upon this evidence, the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the trial court reforming the policy to include uninsured motorist coverage. The Court of Appeals further held that the plaintiff was entitled to proceed to arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim under the policy.
