Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 150556; Unpublished
Judges Weaver, Murphy, and Jansen; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Revised Judicature Act – Arbitration (MCL 600.5001, et seq.)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Arbitration of Uninsured Motorist Claims
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the circuit court confirming an arbitration award in favor of plaintiff for uninsured motorists benefits. After the initial arbitration award had been disclosed to the parties, defendant had moved to set aside the arbitration award which was granted by the arbitration panel. The panel then subsequently entered a new award of no cause of action in favor of defendant. However, the circuit court entered a judgment on the first arbitration award in favor of plaintiff, and this order of the circuit court was upheld by the Court of Appeals.
Plaintiff was the next friend of her minor daughter, 4-year old Constance Full wood. The youngster was injured while in the care of her grandmother when she ran out into the street and was struck by an uninsured motorist. Plaintiff sought uninsured motorist coverage under a policy issued by defendant to the grandmother. Defendant refused to pay benefits on the grounds that it was not liable under the policy, and the matter was submitted to arbitration.
Upon the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, an award was entered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $20,000. After disclosure of the award, defendant requested that the arbitration award be set aside, claiming that plaintiff had not established that the uninsured motorist was negligent. The arbitration panel reopened the matter and subsequently entered an arbitration award of no cause of action in favor of defendant.
Plaintiff subsequently filed a petition in circuit court for a judgment confirming the original arbitration award. At the hearing held on this petition, it was discovered that the policy relied upon by plaintiff, a policy form given to the grandmother by her insurance agent, differed from the policy form relied upon by defendant. Under the language of either policy, however, the circuit court held that pursuant to MCR 3.602, the arbitrators were without authority to modify their original award after disclosure of the award to the parties, and, accordingly, confirmed the original arbitration award entered in favor of plaintiff.
Defendant argued that MCR 3.602 applies only if the arbitration under the policy was "statutory" arbitration pursuant to MCLA 600.5001; MSA 27A.501, rather than "common law" arbitration. The policy form relied upon by plaintiff obtained language that "judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof which the court found to give rise to statutory arbitration. On the other hand, the policy form relied upon by defendant provided that, "State court rules governing procedure... shall be used." While the language of the policy form relied upon by defendant did not give rise to statutory arbitration, the court nonetheless found that the provisions of MCR 3.602 were applicable due to the wording of the clause.
