Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 132365; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Sawyer, and Murphy; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Arbitration of Uninsured Motorist Claims
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals construed the uninsured motorist provisions of Amerisure's policy to require that uninsured motorists benefits be paid where another applicable insurance policy "denies coverage." The Court of Appeals held that the clear and unambiguous language of Amerisure's policy indicated that it is the denial of coverage which triggers the uninsured motorist coverage under Amerisure's policy, and the question of whether or not coverage under some other applicable insurance policy was properly denied is not an issue for purposes of this particular uninsured motorist clause.
In this case, plaintiff Knepper was injured in an automobile accident. The car involved in the accident was driven by defendant DeWeese and owned by her father. Frankenmuth Mutual insured the DeWeese automobile, but denied coverage for the accident on the grounds that the driver was an unlicensed driver, and had taken the vehicle without her father's permission. Therefore, Frankenmuth denied coverage on the third-party claim for damages sustained by plaintiff Knepper.
After Frankenmuth's denial of coverage, plaintiffs sought coverage under their own uninsured motorist coverage in a policy issued by Amerisure. Amerisure, however, denied coverage and contended that coverage was in fact owed by Frankenmuth. At arbitration, Amerisure was denied the opportunity to present evidence on the issue of whether Frankenmuth's denial of coverage was proper. On this basis, the trial court set aside the arbitration award, concluding that Amerisure should have been afforded the opportunity to present the arbitrators with evidence concerning the propriety of Frankenmuth's denial of coverage.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in vacating the arbitration award. The provisions of uninsured motorist coverage under Amerisure's policy are triggered by unambiguous language indicating that if there is a denial of coverage under some other applicable policy, this denial of coverage triggers the uninsured motorist coverage under Amerisure's policy. Whether the denial of coverage is proper or improper is irrelevant, since the policy language does not restrict itself to improper denials of coverage. The Court of Appeals held that the broad language of Amerisure's policy may have been employed to insure a prompt payment of benefits to Amerisure's insureds without having to wait until the insured can successfully litigate a claim against the tortfeasor's insurance carrier. At best, the clause is ambiguous, and, therefore, must be construed against the drafter and in favor of coverage. The Court of Appeals held that the arbitrators correctly determined that the issue of the correctness of Frankenmuth's denial of coverage under its policy was irrelevant to the resolution of the issue in this case, namely whether plaintiffs were entitled to uninsured motorist coverage benefits under the Amerisure policy. The trial court decision was reversed and remanded.
