Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 106301; Published
Judges MacKenzie, Weaver, and Quinnell; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 177 Mich App 543; 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 reversed the trial court's denial of summary disposition requested by defendant insurers. The dispute concerned interpretation of exclusionary language regarding recovery of uninsured motorist benefits.
Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving an uninsured vehicle and a dram shop. Plaintiff apparently settled his dram shop claim and made application for uninsured motorist benefits which were applicable to the uninsured vehicle. The insurer contested its liability claiming that an exclusion precluded recovery where the insured had settled with a "person who might be legally responsible for the actions of the owner or operator of the uninsured vehicle." Here, the court held that the dram shop owners with whom plaintiff settled were persons "legally responsible" for the conduct of the uninsured motorist, since dram shop liability is entirely dependent upon the conduct and liability of the intoxicated tortfeasor. In reliance upon the case of Michigan Mutual v Karsten, 13 Mich App 46 (1968), the court held the exclusionary clause in the insurance policy precluded a claim of uninsured motorist benefits.
