Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 13 8280; Unpublished
Judges Weaver, Murphy, and Jansen; 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
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of plaintiff in a suit for uninsured motorist benefits. The court found that the vehicle operated by the driver at fault in the accident was not uninsured and, therefore, defendant's uninsured motorist coverage was inapplicable.
Plaintiff was injured while a passenger in a vehicle struck by a truck driven by an individual named Gerald Domigan during the course of Domigan's employment with Michigan Container. In turn, Domigan's employer had leased the truck from E & L Leasing Company. While Michigan Container was without applicable insurance coverage, E & L Leasing Company was covered under a policy of insurance. Plaintiff filed a suit for third-party liability in Wayne County Circuit Court naming Domigan and Michigan Container as party defendants. Plaintiff also named as a party defendant an entity known was E & L Truck Rental, that apparently was a different entity from E & L Leasing, the owner of the truck. Accordingly, E & L Truck Rental was dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff obtained a default judgment against Domigan and Michigan Container, who were both uninsured for the accident.
Plaintiff turned to his own insurance under a policy issued by Farmers Insurance Exchange seeking uninsured motorist coverage. The matter was originally submitted to arbitration. However, the arbitrator concluded that he did not have the authority to determine whether the truck was an uninsured motor vehicle within the meaning of defendant's insurance policy. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the case at bar, requesting declaratory relief and seeking uninsured motorist benefits. The trial court concluded that the policy of insurance issued to the truck's owner, E & L Leasing, was "excess coverage" only, and therefore, concluded that the truck was uninsured within the meaning of plaintiff’s insurance policy issued by defendant.
The Court of Appeals reversed and held that under the definition of the term uninsured motor vehicle, as utilized by defendant's policy, the truck involved in the accident was not uninsured. The policy of insurance issued to the owner of the truck provided excess coverage in the event other insurance was provided on the truck. As no other insurance covered the truck here, the policy issued to the truck's owner provided primary coverage. That being so, the truck was not "uninsured" as defined in the policy issued to plaintiff by defendant and therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage.
