Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos.111500 and 111660; Unpublished
Judges MacKenzie, Marilyn Kelly, and T. M. Burns; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability Policy Exclusions for Owned and Non-Owned Vehicles [§3131]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals enforced a liability policy exclusion that prevented liability coverage from being extended to other vehicles not insured under the policy but owned or available for the regular use of resident family members.
Defendant Michigan Mutual insured Mr. and Mrs. William Traynor. Mr. and Mrs. Traynor had a son, Timothy, who resided with his parents. Timothy owned an uninsured automobile that was involved in an accident causing the death of the other motorist. Timothy Traynor sought liability coverage under his parents policy issued by Michigan Mutual. Under the policy, a covered person was defined as the named insured or any family member with regard to the ownership, maintenance or use of any automobile or trailer. However, in the "exclusions" section of this policy, it was clearly and unambiguously stated that liability coverage was not provided with regard to any vehicle owned by or furnished for the regular use of any family member. This exclusions section was clearly entitled and appeared on the same page of the policy as the broad definition of covered person. In holding that the exclusion was enforceable to prevent coverage under the parents policy, the court stated:
"The inclusive statement of coverage does not make the policy ambiguous. The exclusion is clearly stated in the 'exclusions' section, which begins on the same page as the broad definition of 'coveredperson.' When read as a whole, the policy excludes Timothy Traynor's uninsured vehicle. Our conclusion is not inconsistent with our Supreme Court's recent decision in Powers. There, the exclusions were not listed in the exclusions section of the policy, but rather had to be gleaned from the definition of a 'non-owned' vehicle, a term not flagged to highlight its special meaning."
