Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 122700; Unpublished
Judges Holbrook, Jr., Wahls, and T.G. Kavanagh; 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 per curiam Opinion, interpreting an "owned vehicle" exclusion, the Court of Appeals affirmed declaratory judgment in favor of the insurance company and concluded that it did not owe liability coverage to the insured under the "temporary substitute vehicle" language of the insurance policy, where the accident involved a vehicle owned by the insured but not listed on the policy.
In this case, the insured, Cornellier, owned a 1979 Ford Bronco which was insured with Auto Owners. On November 13,1987, Cornellier applied for insurance on the Bronco and did not ask for any other insurance on any other vehicles. On November 30,1987, Cornellier was involved in a motor vehicle accident while operating a 1969 AMC vehicle, which he had owned since 1980. On December 17,1987, the insurance policy previously applied for on November 13,1987, was issued by defendant.
When Cornellier was sued in connection with the accident, Auto Owners denied coverage on the basis that the policy did not cover an insured while using another vehicle owned by the insured. Cornellier argued that the 1969 AMC automobile was a "temporary substitute vehicle" in light of the in operability of the insured's Bronco at the time of the accident. The language of the policy provided:
"While the automobile is withdrawn from normal use because of its breakdown, repair... such insurance as is afforded by this policy with respect to such automobile applies with respect to another automobile not owned by the named insured while temporarily used as a substitute." (emphasis in original)
While it was undisputed that the insured Bronco was inoperable due to repairs being made, the Court of Appeals found that the "owned vehicle exclusion" was unambiguous in its language providing that an automobile owned by the named insured does not qualify for coverage as a temporary substitute vehicle under the terms of the policy.
The court also rejected the insured's argument that he did not have an opportunity to read the policy and that the exception was "deceptively placed within the body of the policy." The court held that since the insured did not receive the policy before the accident, his reasonable expectation of coverage could not be said to have been denied, since he never had an opportunity to read the policy. The court also held that the insured's entire past practice indicated that he understood that to insure a car, it must be listed on the policy. Previous experience with this insured indicated that he had insured the 1969 AMC in the past and that it strained credibility to believe that the insured suddenly developed a reasonable expectation he would be insured while driving the AMC merely because the Bronco was inoperable.
