Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.122202; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Murphy, and Marilyn Kelly; 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 affirmed the trial court ruling that an all-terrain cycle with three wheels, no roof, no doors, and no windshield, and handlebars instead of a steering wheel, was not an "automobile" within the meaning of the insurance policy's uninsured motorist provision.
The claimant was injured when involved in an accident while riding the all-terrain cycle which collided with a pickup truck on a traveled portion of the roadway. Benefits were claimed under Citizens' uninsured motorist provision contained in an automobile insurance policy covering the claimant. The uninsured motorist provision states that Citizens will pay all sums which the insured shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of "an uninsured automobile."
The claimant noted that the definition of uninsured automobile excluded certain types of vehicles such as farm-type tractors, a vehicle operated on rails or crawler treads, or used as a residence, and contended that the exclusion of these types of vehicles expanded the definition of automobile to include all other types of vehicles. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and held that the meaning of the term "automobile" remains unambiguous, and using the ordinary sense of the word, the all-terrain cycle was not an automobile for purposes of the uninsured motorist clause.
