Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 240991; Unpublished
Judges Donofio, Sawyer, and O’Connell; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition which had been granted in favor of the plaintiff, and held that there was no uninsured motorist coverage available to plaintiff for the death of his grandson who was not insured under plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy.
Plaintiff’s grandson was killed in a motor vehicle accident when his mother drove the wrong way down a street. Farmers Insurance Exchange insured neither the car nor the child under its policy. Plaintiff, who was insured under the policy and was the grandfather of the child killed, claimed uninsured motorist benefits because the policy’s definition of “bodily injury” included “death of any person.”
The policy provision at issue stated, “We will pay all sums which an insured person is legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injuries sustained by the insured person.” The policy defined “bodily injury” as including “death of any person.” Plaintiff argued that the phrase “death of any person” was ambiguous and allowed for recovery by plaintiff for the death of his grandson.
In reversing the trial court ruling in favor of plaintiff, the Court of Appeals held that the policy language in context clearly only covers injuries “sustained by the insured person.” The decedent grandson was neither a named insured nor an insured by definition pursuant to the insuring agreement and definitions. For plaintiff’s claim to succeed, plaintiff must demonstrate that he “sustained” his own grandson’s death. The only person that sustained the death of plaintiff’s grandson was plaintiff’s grandson, so plaintiff’s argument fails. The court held that the case of Auto Club Insurance Association v DeLaGarza, 433 Mich 208 (1989) was distinguishable because it did not contain a modifying clause limiting coverage to injuries sustained by the insured.
