Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 61297; Published
Judges T. M. Burns, Allen, and Cynar, Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 124 Mich App 29; 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 Opinion by Judge Allen, the Court of Appeals held that an uninsured motorist clause applicable to one of plaintiff’s insured vehicles was not "portable" thereby providing coverage to plaintiff when he was in an accident involving his uninsured vehicle and another uninsured vehicle. The Court held mat public policy would not be well served by adopting plaintiffs coverage theory. It was noted that the no-fault statute requires owners or registrants of vehicles to purchase insurance for those vehicles. Similarly, the statute denied no-fault first party benefits to the owner/drivers of uninsured vehicles. To adopt plaintiff’s argument that an uninsured motorist clause is portable and attaches to the use of other uninsured vehicles owned by plaintiff, it would discourage the purchase of insurance. In addition, the Court noted that the Supreme Court in Bradley v Mid-Century (item number 312); Raska v Farm Bureau (item number 488), and State Farm v Ruuska (item number 487), ruled that "other insurance" and "owned vehicle" exclusions in post-no-fault insurance policies are not void or unconscionable if such exclusions are clearly expressed in the policy.
