Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 117106; Unpublished
Judges Marilyn Kelly, Sawyer, and Weaver; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Reformation of Insurance Contracts
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a motor vehicle solely owned by a nonresident son could not be considered to be insured under his parents' insurance policy for the reason that the parents and their insurance company did not believe the son's truck was insured, nor did the parents pay a premium to have it insured. Therefore, even if the nonresident son's vehicle could, under the terms of the policy, be considered to be covered, the court held, "that part of the contract would be invalid due to the mutual mistake of the parties." In reaching its holding, the court stated, "As a general rule, where a contract is open to construction, it is the duty of the court to determine the true intent of the parties. In ascertaining intent, the court should consider the language employed in the contract, its subject matter and the circumstances surrounding the making of the agreement. Where there is a mutual mistake, a contract may be rescinded."
