Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 103163; Published
Judges Gribbs, Shepherd, and Cooper; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 175 Mich App 206; 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 enforced an "owned vehicle exclusion" regarding uninsured motorist coverage and denied uninsured motorist benefits to plaintiff who was injured while a passenger in an uninsured automobile owned and operated by her sister when the automobile collided with a tree. Both plaintiff (who did not own a vehicle) and her sister resided with their mother. Plaintiff filed a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under the mother's no-fault policy. The Court of Appeals held that defendant correctly denied coverage to plaintiff under an owned vehicle exclusion which stated that uninsured motorist coverage does not apply "to bodily injury to an insured while occupying an automobile (other than an insured automobile) owned by a named insured or any relative resident in the same household, or through being struck by such an automobile."
The Court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Powers v DAIIE (Item No. 979) did not mandate a contrary result because Powers was not a majority decision and "thus is not binding precedent." The Court further stated that Powers was distinguishable because the language of the exclusionary clause at issue in the Powers case referred to "non-owned automobiles," while the exclusion in the case at bar did not use that concept. The confusing meaning of "non-owned automobile" was one of the central issues in Powers.
The Court concluded that the policy in this case was not ambiguous. The plaintiff's mother (the named insured) did not have any reasonable expectation that plaintiff would be covered while occupying an uninsured automobile owned and operated by plaintiff's sister. In that situation, it was not reasonable to expect that the mother's policy was "portable" so as to extend uninsured motorist coverage to another relative's uninsured vehicle.
