Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 127799; Published
Judges Sawyer, Kelly, and Neff; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 190 Mich App 93; 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 per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the validity of an "owned vehicle exclusion" in State Farm's policy, but ruled that the exclusion did not apply to the facts of this particular case, thereby permitting the liability coverages of a father and non-resident son to be stacked.
In the facts of this case, the son, Christopher Clemens, was involved in an automobile accident driving a Mercury owned by his father, Robert Clemens. The son, Christopher Clemens, also owned a vehicle that was not involved in the accident. State Farm insured both vehicles. State Farm tendered its policy limits on the father's vehicle but refused to provide coverage under the son's vehicle on the basis of an owned/non-owned vehicle exclusion, which would afford coverage to Christopher Clemens if he were driving a non-owned vehicle but would preclude coverage if he were driving an owned vehicle. A non-owned vehicle is defined by the State Farm policy as a vehicle that is owned by, registered in the name of, or furnished or available for the regular or frequent use of "you, your spouse or any relative." The term "relative," is defined as "a person related to you or your spouse by blood, marriage or adoption who lives with you."
The Court of Appeals held that his father's Mercury was not available for the regular or frequent use of Christopher. In addition, the court held that under the definition of "relative," Christopher's father was not his relative, because Christopher did not live with his father at the time of the accident. In this case, Christopher was a college student in Florida and resided there year around with the exception of periodic visits to his parents’ home. He had a Florida driver's license and his personal vehicle was registered in Florida. The court noted that the exclusion in question did not utilize terminology that referred to "legal residence" but rather determined a relative status by whether or not they lived together. The concept of "live with" is different man the concept of legal residence.
The court stated that exclusionary clauses should be strictly construed against the insurer. Therefore, even though this owned/non-owned vehicle exclusion was valid, it did not apply to the facts of this case, and therefore, the insurance policies covering the involved vehicle and the driver's uninvolved vehicle were both applicable to this accident.
