Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 139254; Unpublished
Judges Marilyn Kelly, Shepherd, and Connor; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability Policy Exclusions for Owned and Non-Owned Vehicles [§3131]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that an automobile insurance policy did not provide for residual coverage on another vehicle owned by the insured and involved in the accident. The court construed the owned vehicle and non-owned vehicle provisions of the residual liability coverage as not providing for coverage under the circumstances of this case.
Defendant Harold Florence struck and injured a child while driving a 1977 Chrysler owned by defendant Judith Florence, his estranged wife. Harold was driving the car with Judith's permission. However, the 1977 Chrysler was uninsured at the time of the accident. Plaintiff sought coverage under a policy issued on a second vehicle owned by Judith, a 1973 Chrysler. The trial court found that coverage did exist for Harold and Judith Florence under Allstate's policy on the 1973 Chrysler, even though that vehicle was not involved in the accident.
In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals interpreted the provisions of the coverage provisions of the policy which provide that Allstate will pay for an insured all damages which the insured shall be obligated to pay because of bodily injury sustained by any person, arising out of the "ownership, maintenance or use, including loading and unloading, of the 'owned automobile or a non-owned automobile.'"
Under the definitions section of the policy, an owned automobile means the vehicle described in the declaration. However, the owned automobile coverage does not apply unless "a premium is charged for the application of such coverage with respect to such vehicle."
The non-owned automobile is defined in the policy as any automobile not owned by, or furnished or available for the regular use of the named insured or any resident of his household.
The Court of Appeals held that the automobile in question (the 1973 Chrysler not involved in the accident), could not be considered a non-owned automobile since it was owned by Judith Florence, the named insured. In addition, it could not be considered an owned vehicle, because no premium was charged for coverage of that vehicle. Consequently, the injuries did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of either an owned or a non-owned automobile. The Court of Appeals held that the language of the policy was clear and unambiguous.
