Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 102570; Published
Judge Wahls, Hood, and NJ. Kaufman; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 174 Mich App 284; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability Policy Exclusions for Owned and Non-Owned Vehicles [§3131]
Liability Exclusions Prohibiting Stacking of Coverages [§3131]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of the two insurance companies and held valid an "owned vehicle exclusion" precluding the stacking of additional residual liability coverages on other vehicles in the household.
Plaintiff’s decedent was killed in a motor vehicle accident in March 1980 when her car was struck from behind by a 1968 Buick driven by defendant Kurka. Kurka's own car (a 1974 Plymouth) was inoperable at the time, and therefore, he was driving a borrowed vehicle (a 1968 Buick), which he had borrowed from his friend prior to the accident. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff against Kurka and partially satisfied from Kurka's insurance company and the insurance company of the friend from whom he borrowed the vehicle. Plaintiff sought to collect the balance from Transamerica and Auto Owners, each of whom insured Kurka's father, grandmother, and uncle, respectively. Kurka resided in the same household as his grandmother, father, and uncle at the time of the accident The plaintiff contended that the policies extended coverage to Kurka under the substitute vehicle provisions of those policies, as well as under the "use of other automobiles" provision of Transamerica's policies, and under the "drive other cars" provision of the Auto Owners policy. The insurance companies contented that the policy language clearly excluded Kurka from coverage.
The Court of Appeals held that the substitute vehicle provisions of the two policies clearly indicated that they applied only to the "named insured or insured's spouse" and that only vehicles used as substitutes for the vehicles named in the policies are covered. Kurka was neither named as an insured on any of the policies, nor was his 1974 Plymouth listed as an insured vehicle.
The court also held that Kurka did not fall under the provisions of the two policies regarding use or driving or other automobiles. This coverage is extended to family members who reside with the insured or the insured's spouse, but coverage is clearly excluded where such a family member owns an automobile himself.
The court held that owned vehicle exclusion clauses are valid as long as they are clear and unambiguous, are not against public policy, and employ easily understood terms and plain language.
[Author's Note: **Item No. 1455 was inadvertently omitted from earlier summaries and is included here for completeness.]
