Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 91743; Published
Judges Allen, Cynar, and Livo; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 157 Mich App 383; 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: Physical Contact Requirement
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous Opinion by Judge Allen involves an issue of first impression regarding the "physical contact requirement" in an uninsured motorist policy. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed when a rock was propelled airborne through his windshield as a truck passed plaintiff’s vehicle going in the opposite direction. Plaintiff’s decedent filed a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under her policy, alleging that the accident was caused by a "hit and run driver." The policy required physical contact between the hit and run vehicle and the insured vehicle. The trial court, relying on the case of Auto-Club v Methner (Item No. 664), held that the physical contact requirement was valid and enforceable, and therefore, dismissed plaintiff’s case.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the physical contact requirement is satisfied where there is indirect physical contact that is substantially connected with another motor vehicle. In relying upon precedent from several other states, the Court stated its holding in this fashion:
"The distinction between a.Methner situation where no impact, either direct or indirect, occurs and a Kersten-Adams situation, where physical contact is indirect, is controlling. Where no contact occurs, phantom vehicle claims, claims by a driver who negligently loses control of his car that he was forced off the road by an unknown vehicle, can easily be made. The physical contact provision is designed to reduce the possibility of such fraud. But where indirect contact occurs, the possibility of fraud is substantially diminished by the tangible physical evidence of the intermediate object. In the instant case there is no possibility that plaintiff falsely claims a rock from a passing vehicle went through the windshield of deceased's vehicle. . . .That is not to say, however, that in every case a claimant satisfies the physical contact provision by merely alleging contact through a rock thrown or a tire or rim assembly or other object cast off by a disappearing vehicle. It is still necessary that the proofs establish a substantial physical nexus between the disappearing vehicle and the object cast off or struck."
