Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 137411; Unpublished
Judges Reilly, Gribbs, and Taylor; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court determination that plaintiff was not entitled to stack residual liability coverages under two separate insurance policies where the additional policy contained an exclusion precluding coverage for any vehicle other than the covered automobile which was defined as the vehicle shown in the declarations.
Plaintiff's decedent was killed in a single car automobile accident while a passenger in a Chevrolet driven by defendant Phillip Case and owned by defendant Nancy Marie Case, Phillip's mother. At the time of the accident, Phillip resided with his father and mother. Also at that time, Phillip's mother, Nancy Case, held an automobile insurance policy issued by Centennial Insurance Company. However, the Chevrolet involved in the accident was not an automobile specifically listed on the declarations page of that policy. At the time of the accident, Phillip Case was insured under an automobile policy from American Commercial Liability Insurance on the Chevrolet.
Pursuant to the exclusions contained in the Centennial policy, the Court of Appeals upheld the exclusion of coverage for the Chevrolet pursuant to the language of the policy which provided that the policy did not provide liability coverage for the ownership, maintenance or use of any vehicle, other than your covered auto which is owned by you. The words "your covered auto" are defined in the policy as "any vehicle shown in the declarations."
The Court of Appeals held that this language was clear and unambiguous. Although the Chevrolet was owned by Nancy Case, it was not insured by her on the Centennial policy. No premiums were charged for that vehicle, and it was not listed on the declarations page of the Centennial policy. Therefore, it is excluded from coverage under the exclusions provision of the Centennial policy.
The Court of Appeals also rejected arguments that because Phillip Case in fact is a "covered person" under the Centennial policy, and since there is no exclusion relating to "covered person" under the policy, that there is an ambiguity in the contract with respect to liability coverage. The court held that a policyholder, upon reading the policy provisions under the exclusions section would have no reasonable expectation of coverage for the accident involving the Chevrolet.
