Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #320090; Unpublished
Judges Meter, Cavanagh, and Wilder; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Security for Payment of Benefits; Definitions [§3101]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was properly denied to Farm Bureau in an uninsured motorist action, because Farm Bureau failed to provide sufficient documentation regarding no-fault coverage and the concept of “ownership.”
Farm Bureau sought summary disposition in this case, which involved an action brought by its insured for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits. Farm Bureau contended the benefits were not payable because the vehicle involved in the accident was insured by its owner, RPM Auto Sales. The trial court denied Farm Bureau’s motion for summary disposition. On appeal, Farm Bureau contended that RPM was an “owner” of the vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Code and the No-Fault Act, and that because RPM was insured, Farm Bureau was not liable for UM benefits.
The Court of Appeals found that Farm Bureau failed to identify the definitional concepts governing ownership and, instead, relied on traditional definitions of owner as provided in the Motor Vehicle Code and the No-Fault Act. The court rejected this as a basis for establishing RPM’s ownership of the vehicle, clarified that UM coverage is not statutorily mandated and that ownership is governed by the definition in the policy — which was not ascertainable in this case.
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals said:
“[T]he full terms of the uninsured motorist provision of plaintiff’s policy have not been disclosed or discussed and thus we cannot determine how the term ‘owner’ is used and defined in the policy, if at all, and how the term relates, under the specific facts of this case, to Farm Bureau’s liability for uninsured motorist benefits. Farm Bureau has simply failed to establish a right to judgment and thus the trial court did not err in denying its motion for summary disposition.”
