Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 117342; Published
Judges Gillis, Hood, and Reilly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 190 Mich App 436; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Revised Judicature Act – Arbitration (MCL 600.5001, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the language of the no-fault insurer's arbitration clause and rejected plaintiff’s contention that the insurance company was not entitled to appoint as its arbitrator designee an attorney who actively represented Citizens Insurance Company in other cases.
The claimant was struck and injured by a hit and run motorist. The insurance contract provided that if there was a dispute as to whether the insured was legally entitled to recover damages or do not agree as to the amount of payment, then the arbitration provisions of the insurance contract would apply. The arbitration clause in the contract provided that the insurance company and the claimant would each select an arbitrator, and the arbitrators would then select a "competent and disinterested umpire."
Plaintiff selected an arbitrator, and the defendant for its arbitrator selected an attorney who actively represented Citizens in other insurance cases. Plaintiff objected to this and successfully had the arbitrator selected by Citizens Insurance Company disqualified by the circuit court The trial judge ruled that it would be very difficult for the defendant's arbitrator to be totally unprejudiced and unbiased" in light of the fact that he represented Citizens in other actions.
On appeal, the decision of the trial court was reversed on the grounds that where the policy language is not ambiguous, the court will accept the plain meaning of the written terms. Here, the arbitration clause provided for a "neutral umpire," and there was no provision indicating that the parties must select neutral and disinterested arbitrators as their selections for the three arbitrator panel. Quoting case law from California, the Court of Appeals held that "particularly where a neutral arbitrator is also involved... it is not necessarily unfair or unconscionable to create an effectively neutral tribunal by building in presumably offsetting biases." The court also cited the Uniform Arbitration Act, MCLA 600.500(1), which provides that if an arbitration agreement provides a method of appointment of arbitrators, this method shall be followed.
