Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 153822; Unpublished
Judges Marilyn Kelly, White, and Breck; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Physical Contact Requirement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion dealing with uninsured motorist benefits, the Court of Appeals held that if an uninsured motorist policy requires the existence of a "physical contact" motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs claim for uninsured motorist benefits is properly denied where that physical contact did not exist even though an independent witness corroborated the fact that plaintiffs vehicle was run off the road by a phantom vehicle.
The court noted that Michigan has previously upheld physical contact requirements. See, Kreager v State Farm (Item No. \59\); Auto Club v Methner (Item No. 664); Said v Auto Club, 152 Mich App 240 (1986). The court noted that even though there are cases which liberally construe the term "physical contact," all of these cases expressly reaffirm the requirement that there be some physical contact. In noting that such contact did not exist in this case, the court stated:
"In the instant case, the nexus between the unidentified car and the injury is present. The physical contact, however, is not Notwithstanding plaintiffs argument that where an eyewitness corroborates a claimant's description of a phantom vehicle, the risk of fraud of substantially reduced and public policy is satisfied, we are unable to conclude that this court can properly rewrite the insurance contract to wholly eliminate the contractual requirement that there be some physical contact"
The court noted that Michigan currently has no statute addressing uninsured motorist insurance. Thus, the court recommended "that the issue be raised before the Legislature."
