Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 118208; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Neff, and Beasley; 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 determined that a motorcycle was not a motor vehicle for purposes of plaintiff’s entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits in a case where the plaintiff was injured by an uninsured motorist while he was riding a motorcycle which also did not have insurance coverage.
Auto Owners denied plaintiff’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits on the basis of an exclusion contained in the insurance policy which provided that uninsured motorist coverage would not apply to bodily injury to an insured sustained while in, upon, entering, or alighting from any "-motor vehicle owned by the named insured" unless a premium charged for this coverage is shown in the declarations for such vehicle.
The trial court, relying on Auto Owners Insurance Company v Ellegood (Item 1453), held that a motorcycle was a "motor vehicle" for purposes of this exclusion, and plaintiffs were not entitled to the uninsured motorist benefits because the motorcycle at the time of the accident was not insured.
In reversing the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeals distinguished this case from Ellegood and from the Supreme Court ruling in Bianci v Automobile Club of Michigan (Item No. 1435). The Court of Appeals held that the insurance policy at issue here contained a specific definition of the term motor vehicle as a vehicle "operated or designed for operation upon a public highway by power other than muscular power which has more than two wheels"
Unlike Ellegood (which contained no definition of a motor vehicle) and Bianci (which contained a definition of motor vehicle which was broader than the definition herein), the Court of Appeals held that the only definition of motor vehicle in the policy was that provided by the no-fault insurance endorsement which unambiguously excluded "two-wheeled motorcycles" from being included within the meaning of the term. Therefore, the unambiguous definition of motor vehicle in the policy excludes motorcycles, and the uninsured motorist exclusionary clause does not preclude plaintiffs from receiving uninsured motorist coverage on that basis.
