Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 119602; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Gillis, and Reilly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals enforced an "owned vehicle exclusion" that precluded the payment of uninsured motorist benefits where the injured person sustained bodily injury while an occupant of any motor vehicle owned by the injured person or a family member which was not insured with uninsured motorist coverage under the policy in question.
In this case, plaintiff husband was involved in an accident while driving a vehicle owned by his wife. The tortfeasor was uninsured. The plaintiff husband sought uninsured motorist benefits under a separate policy issued by defendant covering an uninvolved vehicle. In affirming the trial court's denial of uninsured motorist benefits, the court held: "Owned vehicle exclusions are valid so long as they are clear and unambiguous, employing easily understood terms and plain language. In this case, the exclusion is contained in a separate subheading within the uninsured motorist coverage section of the policy and is explicitly labeled. We believe the exclusion is clear and unambiguous. A fair reading of the entire policy plainly leads to one interpretation, that uninsured motorist coverage does not extend to injuries sustained while occupying a car owned by another family member which is not insured for coverage under the subject policy. Because the language is clear and unambiguous, plaintiff could not have had a reasonable expectation of coverage."
