Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 104278; Unpublished
Judges Beasley, Gillis, and Schma; 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: Notice and Statute of Limitations for Uninsured Motorist Coverage
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of Auto-Owners, dismissing Brendly's claim for uninsured motorist benefits on the basis that timely notice under the uninsured motorist coverage had not been given.
Brendly was injured when he struck his knee on the front bumper of a truck while working at a car wash.
Since he did not believe himself to be seriously injured, he did not obtain the name of the truck driver,
license number or report the incident to police. Thereafter, the injury became evident, ultimately requiring
knee surgery.
The incident fell within the "hit and run" section of the uninsured motorist coverage of the policy. The policy required that the police be notified within 24 hours, and that the insurance company receive notice of the accident within 30 days. Neither of these conditions were fulfilled, and the insurance company did not receive notice of the accident until ten months after the accident.
In affirming the trial court dismissal of the insured's arbitration claim, the Court of Appeals held that the insured had failed to give a valid reason for failing to comply with the policy notification requirements. His lack of awareness of the notice provisions was an insufficient excuse, since an insured must be held to knowledge of his insurance policy even if he may not have read it Farm Bureau Insurance v Hoag, 136 Mich App 326 (1984).
The Court of Appeals also found that the policy notification requirements were clear and unambiguous, and should be enforced.
