Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 142222; Unpublished
Judges Shepherd, MacKenzie, and White; 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:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals interpreted a non-owned vehicle exclusion contained in State Farm's insurance policy on two family-owned automobiles not involved in the accident. The court construed the non-owned vehicle language to be unambiguous and to preclude coverage under those policies, thus limiting the injured party to recover only from the insurance policy on the vehicle involved in the accident.
In this case, Matthew Crenshaw's parents were the owners of three automobiles each separately insured by separate insurance policies through State Farm. Matthew was involved in an automobile accident causing injury to another person. The car he was driving at the time was a GMC vehicle jointly owned by his parents. Matthew's parents also owned two other vehicles with his mother the named insured on the Honda vehicle, and his father the named insured on the Ford vehicle.
The injured party settled with the Crenshaws for the limits of the GMC policy of $50,000 per person. The settlement left open the possibility of claiming additional compensation through the policies on the Honda and Ford vehicle. State Farm commenced a declaratory judgment action to determine that no additional coverage was available on the insurance covering the other two vehicles based upon the language of State Farm's non-owned automobile exclusions and its anti-stacking provisions of its insurance policies.
The Court of Appeals in construing the non-owned vehicle provisions held that the provisions of §4a(l) and §4a(2) of the amendatory exclusion were not ambiguous. Those sections provided that:
"There is no coverage under coverages A and Y:
4. For the operation, maintenance or use of any vehicle:
a. Owned by or registered or leased in the name of:
1. You, your spouse;
2. Any relative unless at the time of the accident:
a. The car is or has been described on the declarations page of a liability policy within the preceding 30 days; and
b. You, your spouse or a relative who does not own or lease such car is the driver. This does not apply to your car, newly acquired car, or temporary substitute car."
The injured party as appellant in this case appealed from the trial judge's decision finding this language unambiguous. The appellant asserted that the language of §4a(2)(a) and (b) should be construed to modify §4a(l) which would thus result in the exclusion not preventing coverage to appellant because the GMC was described on the declarations page of a liability policy and was being driven by a relative who did not own the vehicle. Appellant contended that the language of this exclusion was ambiguous because if §4a(l) is read alone, it denies coverage for the very vehicle insured under the policy since it denies coverage for any car owned by the named insured.
In rejecting appellant's argument, the Court of Appeals noted that the final language of the exclusion clearly indicated that the exclusion "does not apply to your car, newly acquired car, or temporary substitute car."
The Court of Appeals relied on the decision in State Farm v Koutz, 189 Mich App S3S (1991) where similar language was held to be unambiguous in excluding coverage for the operation of a vehicle not included on the declarations page of the policy, which vehicle was being operated by a relative.
The Court of Appeals also rejected appellant's argument that the insured Crenshaws reasonably expected the coverage under the Ford and Honda policies to extend to a collision involving the GMC. The court held that because there are no misleading provisions in the policies on the Ford and Honda, the Crenshaws could not reasonably expect coverage under the policies where the language specifically denies such coverage.
