Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 145654; Published
Judges Taylor, Reilly, and M. J. Talbot; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Reilly
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 204 Mich App 81; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability Policy Exclusions for Owned and Non-Owned Vehicles [§3131]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published Opinion by Judge Reilly, the Court of Appeals determined that an injured plaintiff was not entitled to seek coverage under the residual liability provisions of his own insurance policy for injuries he sustained while a passenger in a vehicle driven by his half-brother. The Court of Appeals construed the policy language to provide coverage only to an insured when that insured incurs legal responsibility to another.
Plaintiff Jason Dowell was injured in an accident while he was a passenger in a vehicle owned and being driven by his half-brother, McKeever. Plaintiff made a claim against his half-brother and the operator of the other vehicle, and a consent judgment was entered in the amount of $170,000, $50,000 of which was payable by the insurance company for the other driver, and $20,000 payable by McKeever's insurance company. As to the remaining $100,000, plaintiff claimed that his own insurance policy was required to pay that amount based upon interpretation of the liability coverage provisions in that policy. The liability coverage provisions state that Dowell’s insurance company will pay damages for "bodily injury" for which any "insured" becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident. The provisions of the liability coverage define an "insured" as "you or any family member for the ownership, maintenance or use of any auto or trailer."
The policy also contains exclusions of liability coverage for the ownership, maintenance or use of "any vehicle other than your covered auto" which is owned by any family member. However, this exclusion also provides that it does not apply to "use of any vehicle which is owned by a family member."
The injured plaintiff contended that because he was "using" McKeever's vehicle as a passenger when the accident occurred, the exclusion of liability coverage contained in the policy did not apply, and therefore, his insurance company was obligated to pay the liability coverage for the liability of plaintiff s half-brother.
In construing the liability coverage provisions of the policy, the Court of Appeals concluded that the only reasonable interpretation of the exclusion is that the insurer will not pay damages for which Dowell's half-brother became legally responsible arising out of his operation of his own vehicle. The court also held that the only reasonable interpretation of the exception to the exclusion of liability coverage is that the insurance company would be obligated to provide coverage for any legal responsibility for damages that insured Dowell may incur because of his maintenance or use of a vehicle owned by a family member.
Based upon its interpretation of the policy provisions for coverage and exclusion of coverage, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court determination that Dowell was not entitled to seek additional coverage through his own policy.
