Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 108565; Unpublished
Judges Gillis, Sullivan, 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
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed a summary disposition in favor of plaintiff Foster, in a case where plaintiff claimed uninsured motorist coverage arising from an accident in which plaintiff was struck by an automobile while plaintiff was riding his motorcycle.
At the time of the accident, Foster was insured by Farmers Insurance under a policy issued on his motorcycle. That policy did not contain uninsured motorist coverage. However, Foster was also insured by Farmers Insurance under a policy issued on an automobile he owned which contained uninsured motorist coverage. While riding his motorcycle, Foster was struck by an automobile which left the scene and was never identified. Farmers denied plaintiff's claim for uninsured motorist coverage under the automobile policy issued on plaintiff's automobile, based upon an exclusionary clause in the automobile policy. This exclusion provided that the policy did not apply to bodily injury to an insured while occupying "an automobile or two-wheel motor vehicle (other than an insured motor vehicle) owned by a named insured."
Foster contended that because his motorcycle was an insured motor vehicle, although under a separate policy, he was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits, and the exclusion did not apply. The trial court agreed with Foster and granted summary disposition in favor of plaintiff.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and held that the exclusionary language was "unambiguous," and therefore, Farmers was entitled to entry of summary disposition in its favor. Under the language of the exclusion, the reference to "insured motor vehicle" was intended to apply to the "described automobile," meaning the automobile described in the policy declarations. When the definition of "insured motor vehicle" is referred to, it is readily apparent that coverage did not apply in the instant case. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of defendant Farmers Insurance.
