Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #315313; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Saad, and Donofrio; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
Recoupment of PIP Benefits from Uninsured Vehicle Owners or Registrants [§3177]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving underinsured motorist benefits and a plaintiff who was driving her father’s vehicle at the time of the accident, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was properly granted to defendant insurer because plaintiff was not an “insured” under her father’s policy because she was not living in her father’s household when the accident occurred.
Plaintiff was injured in a hit-and-run accident while driving her father’s car. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was not living with her father. Defendant 21st Century Centennial insured the vehicle and, when it denied plaintiff’s claim for UIM benefits, defendant brought an action seeking coverage. Defendant moved for summary disposition, claiming plaintiff was not an insured under the terms of the policy. Plaintiff alleged she was an insured or, alternatively, that the policy declarations page and policy itself conflicted, creating an ambiguity that should have been construed against the drafter (defendant). The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant.
Affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals said plaintiff was not an insured under her father’s no-fault policy. The court said:
“The uninsured coverage policy at issue provides that only an ‘insured’ is able to recover benefits. The uninsured motorist portion of the policy defines the term ‘insured’ as ‘you’ or ‘any family member.’ The policy defines ‘you’ as ‘[t]he person or persons shown as a named insured on the Declarations Page.’ The term ‘family member’ is defined as, ‘a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption and who is a resident of your household.’ Thus, according to the plain language in the uninsured motorist coverage section of the policy, only those shown as the ‘named insured’ on the declarations page, and related persons who reside in the same household as the named insured, are entitled to recover uninsured motorist benefits.”
According to the Court of Appeals, this policy provision was unambiguous and the appellate courts have “repeatedly” ruled that an unambiguous contract provision is enforced, unless it violates law or public policy, which it did not in this case.
The Court of Appeals also noted that a judicial determination of “reasonableness” is insufficient to refuse enforcing a contract provision.
Applying these principles to this case, the Court of Appeals said:
“Here, it is clear that the only person named as an insured on the declarations page was plaintiff’s father. While plaintiff was listed in another section as a ‘driver,’ she was not listed on the first page, where it listed the ‘named insured.’ There also is no dispute that plaintiff did not reside with her father. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under the clear and unambiguous policy language, and the trial court properly granted summary disposition in favor of defendant.”
Regarding plaintiff’s claim that the policy language was ambiguous and the policy provisions conflicted, and therefore the contract should have been construed against defendant, the Court of Appeals disagreed and said:
“Although the classification codes for Auto 1 and Auto 2 on the policy declarations page pertain to plaintiff and her father respectively, the policy itself provides that the classifications are not used in developing the premiums for uninsured motorist benefits. … Accordingly, the policy declarations page does not conflict with the specific uninsured motorist policy. Therefore, no ambiguity exists, and plaintiff’s contention is without merit.”
Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims.
