Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 105714; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Beasley, and Gilbert; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed declaratory judgment in favor of the insureds in a case involving interpretation of a recreational vehicle endorsement for a motorcycle not subject to registration in Michigan.
Defendant minors were riding together on a Suzuki motorcycle on a public road in Eaton County. They were unable to negotiate a curve, struck a mailbox and a passenger on the motorcycle was killed. The vehicle was intended by its owner/insured to be used as an off-road vehicle, and not to be used on streets or roadways. The driving of the Suzuki on a public road immediately prior to the accident was in violation of its owner's instructions to his son that the vehicle be used off-road only. No-fault insurance was never obtained for the Suzuki, nor was it registered with the State.
Under the homeowner's insurance policy of the owner of the motorcycle, an exclusion prevented liability coverage for use or negligent entrustment of a "recreational land motor vehicle" if the bodily injury or property damage occurs away from the resident's premises. However, the insured also purchased an additional recreational vehicle endorsement to this policy for which he paid an extra premium to Meridian Insurance. The purpose of the endorsement was specifically to insure the Suzuki. However, this endorsement contained language that excluded coverage for any recreational motor vehicle "subject to motor vehicle registration."
Meridian Insurance contended that the Suzuki was "subject to motor vehicle registration" as a result of the driving of the Suzuki on a public road immediately prior to the accident. Plaintiff insurance company contended that this act transformed the vehicle into one which was subject to registration and which should be covered under a no-fault insurance policy.
The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, noting that the insureds wanted insurance coverage for the Suzuki and agreed to purchase an additional recreational vehicle endorsement for which they paid an extra premium. The court held that it makes no difference whether the accident occurred on a public road or private property. Under the circumstances of this case, the reasonable expectation of the insured and the insured's insurance agent was that the Suzuki would be insured. Therefore, the trial court's declaratory judgment in favor of the insured was affirmed.
