Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 152021; Published
Judges Michael J. Kelly, Connor, and Monton; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Connor
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 204 Mich App 251; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability Policy Exclusions for Business Use [§3131]
Liability Policy Exclusions for Owned and Non-Owned Vehicles [§3131]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published Opinion authored by Judge Connor, the Court of Appeals addressed the application of a business use exclusion for "non-owned" vehicles in this suit for third-party liability coverage.
Plaintiffs decedent, Robert Wilson, was killed when his car was struck by a truck owned by Leonard Glide. The truck was being driven by Leonard's brother, Henry Gilde, and was being used to haul apples from an orchard business owned by Leonard Gilde. Apparently, Henry Gilde was hauling the apples as an accommodation to his brother, and it was not his usual occupation.
The driver of the truck, Henry Gilde, was insured by two policies of no-fault insurance issued by State Farm. The policies contained an identical exclusion for third-party liability coverage if the insured person is driving a "non-owned" vehicle under two circumstances when the non-owned vehicle is:
a. Being repaired, serviced or used by any person while that person is working in any car business; or
b. Used in any other business or occupation.
The policies further provided that the second part of the exclusion does not apply when a private passenger car is being driven or occupied by the named insured.
The insurer denied third-party liability coverage for Henry Gilde because he was driving a non-owned vehicle in connection with a business at the time of the accident The trial court found the exclusion applicable to preclude coverage for the subject accident.
On appeal, the insured, relying upon a previous Court of Appeals decision construing the same exclusionary language, Rossman v State Farm, 184 Mich App 618 (1990) (Item No. 1391) argued that the language was ambiguous and therefore should be construed in favor of coverage. The Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the trial court and held that the business use exclusion unambiguously precluded coverage in this case. The court found that the exclusion applied even though the insured was not engaged in his usual occupation because he nonetheless was involved in a business use of or vehicle that he did not own. The court rejected the plaintiffs argument that the term "other business or occupation," as used in the second part of the exclusion, was ambiguous, and held that the phrase referred to any business use other than a "car business" as referred to in the first clause of the exclusion. The court found the Rossman case to be "flawed" and declined to follow mat decision.
