Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 169284; Unpublished
Judges O'Connell, Wahls, and Holowka; Unanimous; Per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of Citizens Insurance Company on an uninsured motorist provision in its policy, holding that the "other owned vehicle" exclusion applied and barred coverage.
Chad Dusseau was killed when the motorcycle he was riding was hit by an uninsured motorist. Chad's motorcycle was insured through Midwest Mutual Insurance, and Midwest paid benefits to Chad's estate, including the policy limit under the uninsured motorist provision of that policy.
At the time of the accident, Chad lived with his .parents, and they had insurance on their two-vehicles through Citizens, and additionally, a separate policy insured a vehicle owned by Chad. Chad's parents claimed uninsured motorist benefits under the uninsured motorist provisions of Chad's policy as well as the policy issued to them on their vehicles. Citizens refused to pay, and the trial court ruled that the "other owned vehicle" exclusion in Chad's policy and in his parents' policy on their vehicles applied and precluded coverage. The appeal was limited to the question of whether coverage under Chad's parents' policy should have been provided.
The policy at issue had the following uninsured motorist coverage language:
We will pay compensatory damages which "an insured" or the "insured's" legal representative is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an "uninsured motor vehicle" because of "bodily injury."
The same policy also had an "other owned vehicle exclusion" which provided:
We do not provide uninsured motorist coverage for "bodily injury" sustained by an insured:
(1) while "occupying," or when struck by, any motor vehicle owned by you or any
"family member" which is not insured for this coverage under this policy.The Court of Appeals held that the other owned vehicle exclusion was clear, and that Chad's bodily injury was sustained while occupying his own vehicle, which was not insured under his parents' Citizens' policy. Since this language was clear and unambiguous, the owned vehicle exclusion was valid and enforceable.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the contention that the owned vehicle exclusion did not apply because they were not seeking damages "for bodily injury," but rather "because of" bodily injury. The Court of Appeals held that the difference in language in the uninsured motorist clause referring to "because of bodily injury" and the language in the exclusion referring to "for bodily injury" was a distinction without a difference and did not create any ambiguity.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that the "other owned vehicle exclusion" did not apply because Chad's parents were not "occupying a motor vehicle" when they sustained their damages. The court stated that although the parents as well as Chad are all potential insureds under the policy, the terms of the exclusion require that the same insured who sustains the bodily injury cannot have been occupying an owned vehicle that is not covered under the policy. The grant of summary disposition by the trial court was therefore affirmed.
