Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #313068; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Wilder, and Meter; Unanimous; Per Curiam;
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Underinsured Motorist Coverage In General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals determined that pursuant to the language of plaintiff’s personal automobile insurance policy with AAA, plaintiff was not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits in a case in which plaintiff was injured while operating a motor vehicle furnished to him by his employer.
At the time of the accident, plaintiff was employed by Continental Teves and was driving a prototype vehicle in the course of his employment. The prototype vehicle was not plaintiff’s automobile and was not specifically covered under plaintiff’s insurance policy with AAA.
The determining issue in this case was the language of the underinsured motorist coverage in the AAA policy which purported to exclude coverage for bodily injuries sustained by an injured person:
“While occupying a motor vehicle furnished by an insured person’s employer and operated in the course of that insured person’s employment. . . .”
The policy itself did not define the term “furnished.” Plaintiff argued that the term was “ambiguous” based upon the fact that plaintiff’s employer did not own the prototype vehicle and, therefore, cannot be said to have “furnished” the prototype vehicle to plaintiff.
In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s own proffered definition from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, defined “furnished” as “to provide with what is needed.” Neither the insurance policy nor plaintiff’s own definition of the term require the employer to have “ownership” over any vehicle in order to “furnish” such vehicle to the plaintiff.
Using plaintiff’s own proffered definition of furnish, the court held that it was clear that the prototype vehicle is “what is needed” to complete the requested task of returning the prototype vehicle to the Ford testing facility. The court held that it was clear that the employer would have to “provide or supply” plaintiff with the prototype vehicle because he did not previously work on the vehicle or necessarily have access to it.
Accordingly, the trial court’s decision in favor of defendant was affirmed.
