Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 105271; Unpublished
Judges Maher, Cynar, and Griffin; 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: Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Arbitration of Uninsured Motorist Claims
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant DAIIE, holding that plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits, and that the defendant was not obligated to arbitrate the dispute.
Plaintiff drove his truck to property he owned, intending to cut the grass. At the site, an unidentified man offered to help, and followed plaintiff’s instructions to back up plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff was in the back of the truck preparing to unload equipment when the unidentified man apparently put the truck in gear, causing plaintiff to fall out of the back of the truck and sustain injuries.
Plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to receive uninsured motorist benefits from these circumstances, even though he was standing in the back of his own insured truck.
Plaintiffs claim depended upon the language of an exclusion relating to the uninsured motorist coverage which provided that coverage would not apply to bodily injuries sustained by an insured person: "while occupying a motor vehicle which is owned by you or a relative unless that motor vehicle is your car."
Plaintiff contended that since the exclusion eliminated uninsured motorist coverage for injuries sustained when the insured was not occupying "his car," then, conversely, uninsured motorist coverage was available when the insured was occupying "his car."
The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s contention that this language was ambiguous, and that it should be construed against the insureds and thereby provide coverage. The court held that the "basic condition of uninsured motorist coverage is the involvement of an uninsured vehicle." The trial court correctly concluded that the terms of the policy do not afford plaintiff uninsured motorist coverage in this case.
The Court of Appeals further held that the arbitration language of the contract excluded "coverage disputes" from arbitration, unless both parties agreed in writing. Therefore, defendant was not obligated to arbitrate this dispute.
