Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 94603; Unpublished
Judges Danhof, McDonald, and Thomas; 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 construed an ambiguously drafted uninsured motorist policy and concluded that, under the language of the policy, the estranged widow of a man who was killed by an uninsured motorist was entitled to recover uninsured motorist benefits under her own uninsured motorist policy, even though her husband was not residing in her household at the time of the accident and was not operating his wife's car at the time he was killed. The portion of the policy in question read, "we will pay damages for bodily injury which an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle." The widow was the named insured under the policy. The Court held that under the wrongful death statute, she would be a person who could recover from the driver of the uninsured motor vehicle. Thus, she is entitled to recover those benefits under the terms of the uninsured motorist policy. The Court held that even though the insurance company may have intended that the insured person seeking the damage be the one who actually sustained the bodily injury, the insurance company failed to include such limiting language in the policy. As a result, the Court held, "Thus, at best, there is an ambiguity within the contract. Ambiguities contained in insurance contracts are to be construed in favor of the insured."
The Court did, however, reject the widow's argument that she should also be entitled to recover on the basis that the definitional section was not sufficiently precise to exclude a non-resident spouse from coverage. The Court disagreed with that argument, and ruled that the policy language clearly does exclude a non-resident spouse, because the definition of "spouse" makes residency in the insured's household a condition for being a spouse under the policy. However, in light of the previously mentioned ambiguity, the policy should be construed in favor of the insured and coverage be granted.
