Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 320671; Published
Judges Wilder, Shapiro and Ronayne Krause; unanimous Opinion by Judge Wilder
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Physical Contact Requirement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published Opinion by Judge Wilder, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits for injuries she sustained after sheet metal flew from a semi-truck and struck her vehicle, because there was no "direct physical contact" between the semi-truck and the vehicle, as required by the terms of plaintiff's policy.
Plaintiff was driving on I-96 when a piece of sheet metal flew off a semi-truck that was two cars ahead, and hit her vehicle. When the sheet metal flew off the semi-truck, vehicles began swerving to avoid the object. When the sheet metal hit plaintiff's vehicle, it shattered her windshield. Plaintiff slammed her brakes, causing the sheet metal to rebound off the hood, strike the roof and eventually rest on the highway. The semi-truck did not stop. Plaintiff sustained cuts and bruises and was ultimately diagnosed with a "SLAP" tear in her left shoulder, spinal injuries and strains/sprains in her back and neck. Plaintiff filed an uninsured motorist claim with defendant Auto Club Group Insurance, which denied the claim, citing the policy's definition of uninsured motor vehicle: "a hit-and-run motor of which the operator and owner are unknown and which makes direct physical contact with: (1) you or a resident relative, or (2) a motor vehicle which an insured person is occupying." Plaintiff then filed this action for coverage. Auto Club moved for summary disposition, asserting it was not obligated to provide coverage because the semi-truck did not make direct physical contact with plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff argued the policy provided coverage and that, at a minimum, the policy terms were ambiguous and should be interpreted in her favor, as the insured. The trial court denied Auto Club's motion for summary disposition. On appeal, Auto Club argued that plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under the language of the policy, because the phrase "direct physical contact" is not ambiguous and the undisputed facts showed that the semi-truck never made "direct physical contact" with plaintiff's vehicle.
The Court of Appeals agreed with Auto Club and reversed the trial court's ruling. In this regard, the Court noted that prior appellate decisions have held that:
"both direct and indirect contact are sufficient to trigger coverage and that contact with a propelled object constitutes indirect contact providing there is a 'substantial physical nexus' between the propelled object and the unidentified vehicle."
Applying this principle to plaintiff's case, the Court of Appeals noted the policy language at issue differed from the language considered in prior appellate cases, because the provision was written more narrowly, providing for coverage only when the unidentified vehicle makes "direct contact" with the insured or the insured's vehicle. Referring to the policy, the Court said:
"It does not refer to propelled objects as in [previous cases], nor does it use the unmodified term 'physical contact' thereby implicating the 'substantial physical nexus' test. By instead requiring 'direct contact' with the unidentified vehicle, the policy limits uninsured motorist coverage to cases where the unidentified vehicle itself strikes an insured person or vehicle. That requirement is not met here."
Therefore, because plaintiff's vehicle and the semi-truck did not make direct physical contact, uninsured motorist coverage was not triggered, the Court of Appeals concluded.
