Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 86555; Published
Opinion by Justice Boyle (Justices Cavanagh, Mallet, Riley, Griffin, Levin, and Brickley Concurring); Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 437 Mich 65; 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 Opinion by Justice Boyle, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court and the Court of Appeals decisions which had found unenforceable an other-owned vehicle exclusion contained in the insurance policy's optional uninsured motorist coverage section. The dispute concerned whether a motorcycle was a motor vehicle under the language of the exclusion.
The plaintiff was riding his wife's motorcycle when he collided with an uninsured automobile. The insurance policy on the motorcycle did not provide uninsured motorist coverage. The insurance policy on the plaintiff’s wife's automobile did provide such coverage. The defendant insurance company denied the claim on the basis of the wife's policy language which contained an "other owned vehicle" exclusion, which stated that injuries suffered while occupying a motor vehicle owned by the plaintiff’s wife, other than the vehicle specifically named in the policy, were not covered by the policy.
The plaintiff claimed that the exclusion did not apply because a motorcycle was not a motor vehicle for purposes of the exclusion. The trial court concluded that the language of the policy was unclear as to whether a motorcycle was a motor vehicle for purposes of the exclusion. As evidence of such ambiguity, the trial court cited the policy's use of the term "occupying" in connection with the term "motor vehicle." The trial court felt this language indicated that the exclusion was intended to encompass only four-wheeled vehicles. The trial court also thought that the insurance policy failure to expressly refer to motorcycles in the policy contributed to the exclusion's ambiguity.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in a brief unpublished per curiam opinion. (See Item No. 1456 below.)
In its decision reversing the trial court and the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court noted that the provisions of the-No-Fault Act are not at issue in this case. The sole issue is one of contractual interpretation, since uninsured motorist coverage is not required in Michigan. In construing the policy language, the court relied upon the definition of a "motor vehicle" as contained in the uninsured motorist section of the policy, which defined a motor vehicle as a "land motor vehicle" requiring vehicle registration. The court also noted that the term "occupying" was defined as "getting into, or out of."
Although the Supreme Court agreed that the other-owned vehicle exclusion in the policy was not a "model of clarity," in the Supreme Court's opinion, a motorcycle plainly fits within the definition of a motor vehicle for purposes of the uninsured motorists language of this policy. A motorcycle is a motor vehicle in both the common sense and the dictionary sense of the term, it is operated on land, and it is required to be registered. The court also felt that it did not make sense to read the term "occupy" as narrowly as would the plaintiff and the lower courts. The Supreme Court felt that the term “occupy” was certainly an adequate term to indicate the use of a motorcycle. Thus, since a motorcycle is a motor vehicle for purposes of the uninsured motorists exclusion, the exclusion precludes coverage of the plaintiff’s injuries in this case. The court also noted that its decision was consistent with similar language in other policies as construed in the cases of Auto Owners v Ellegood (Item No. 14S3 below) and Ziegler v Goodrich (Item No. 1072).
