Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #262441; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Cooper, and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition for defendant Allstate Insurance Company, finding that because a Certificate of Insurance stated the plaintiff was insured, this created a question of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was, in fact, insured for purposes of defendant’s uninsured insurance contract. The plaintiff in this case was injured in an automobile accident while driving a vehicle he believed was insured through a fleet insurance policy with defendant American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania (CNA), which was obtained for his employer by a local independent insurance agency. Around the time of the accident, plaintiff had purchased the vehicle and leased it back to his employer. Unbeknownst to plaintiff, this transaction caused the policy to lapse. Nevertheless, the Certificate of Insurance on the vehicle indicated the vehicle was insured through the fleet insurance policy. When plaintiff discovered the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was uninsured, plaintiff sought coverage from CNA. CNA denied benefits because the policy had lapsed at the time of the accident. Plaintiff then sought uninsured benefits from defendant Allstate under a policy held by plaintiff’s daughter, who resided with plaintiff. Defendant Allstate determined plaintiff was not entitled to coverage because he was the owner and driver of an uninsured vehicle.
In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals determined that under the terms of the Allstate policy, there was a question of whether plaintiff was an insured person. About one month before the accident, the insurance agency issued a Certificate of Insurance to plaintiff indicating the vehicle was insured for one year. The certificate identified defendant CNA as the insurer and specifically identified plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant Allstate argued that because plaintiff’s vehicle was not listed in the actual policy obtained in December, plaintiff was uninsured. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding a Certificate of Insurance is equivalent to an insurance binder which has been held to be construed as providing indemnity or insurance coverage in like manner and to the same extent as a motor vehicle policy. In this regard, the Court of Appeals stated:
“A certificate of no-fault insurance is clearly a ‘binder’ as contemplated by the statute and prior caselaw. This Court has repeatedly found such a certificate to be evidence of a temporary contract for insurance. A certificate of insurance obviously binds the issuing insurance carrier to provide coverage in the event of a loss. However, the certificate also notifies the world that the holder has secured the mandatory no-fault insurance coverage. Any individual seeking to register his or her motor vehicle may present the certificate to the secretary of state as proof of insurance. A car dealership may rely on a certificate provided by an insurance agency when entering into a transaction with a potential customer. Such proof of insurance also places other drivers and insurance carriers on notice that an insurer intended to provide coverage to the plaintiff.”
The court then addressed Allstate’s argument that it should not be bound by the allegedly inaccurate representations made by the insurance agent. In rejecting this argument, the court noted insurance companies are bound by the acts and contracts made by their agents, and independent agents are given the same treatment as agents employed by the insurance company. In this regard, the court stated:
“It appears clear from the evidence presented on the record that CNA intended to enter into a binding contract for insurance with plaintiff. At a minimum, plaintiff created an issue of fact that his vehicle was covered under McCormick’s fleet insurance policy on the date of the accident, as suggested by the certificate of insurance. Accordingly, whether plaintiff owned an ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ pursuant to the Allstate insurance policy was a question of fact for trial. Therefore, the trial court improperly dismissed plaintiff’s claims under the UM provision against that party.”
