Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #284325; Unpublished
Judges Wilder, Meter, and Fort Hood; 2-1 (Wilder concurring); per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Release and Settlements
Revised Judicature Act – Impairment Due to Alcohol and Drugs
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court determination that a release with one at-fault driver barred the plaintiff’s action against another at-fault driver in this action to recover uninsured motorist benefits.
The plaintiff’s decedent was killed when she was run over by a drunk driver. The drunk driver ran her over as she was awaiting emergency medical treatment for injuries she sustained as a result of another car hitting her. This second and fatal accident occurred, even after people had stopped to help the victim, the police had been called, emergency flashers had been activated, and a car was moved to create a make-shift roadblock.
Plaintiff entered into a release without filing a lawsuit with the driver of the vehicle involved in the first accident for the driver’s policy limits. The release contained broad language referring to “an accident,” “the accident,” and “the October 28, 2006 accident.” Plaintiff then sued the drunk driver and filed a dramshop action against the bar which had served the drunk driver. Plaintiff also sought payment of uninsured motorist benefits through the decedent’s policy with State Farm. State Farm moved for summary disposition, arguing that the release executed with the first driver precluded the claim against State Farm. The trial court agreed and granted State Farm’s motion for summary disposition.
In reversing, the Court of Appeals noted that the release language “clearly” applied only to the first accident. It stated that there can be no dispute that two accidents occurred and that it was not persuaded by the trial court’s rationale that the accidents happened minutes apart. In so finding, it stated:
“First, the decedent was struck by Chasen and was propelled to the center lane of the street. Then, after people had already stopped to help the decedent, after the police had been called, and after certain emergency flashers had been activated, a second accident took place.”
(emphasis in original)
Moreover, the court found that this case did not involve an “uninterrupted succession of blows” as occurred in the unpublished case cited by State Farm, Walker v Allstate Insurance Company [Item No. 2724]. In this case, the court continued, there was a second event that was unanticipated when the second vehicle ran the decedent over despite the presence of bystanders, flashers, and a make-shift roadblock.
