Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 242749; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Markey, and Meter; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Underinsured Motorist Coverage: Underinsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a typographical error in the underinsured motorist provisions of the applicable insurance policy did not render the policy ambiguous and, therefore, held the insurance company was entitled to reduce the limits of its liability by the amount of sums paid by or on behalf of persons legally responsible for the injuries.
The policy at issue contained a provision for “limit of liability” which the insurance company contended allowed it to subtract from its $100,000 limits the amount of $40,000 received by the plaintiffs from the other driver’s insurance company. Plaintiffs claimed that the “limit of liability” provision in the policy was ambiguous by reason of the following language:
“However, the limit of liability shall be reduced by all sums paid because or the bodily injury by or on behalf of persons or organizations who may be legally responsible.”
The trial court held that the apparent typographical error arising from the use of the “or” rather than “of” in this provision rendered the policy ambiguous and, therefore, construing the policy against defendant and in favor of coverage negated the insurance company’s effort to subtract $40,000 from the policy limits.
In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that the word “or” is easily recognized as a typographical error because its appearance renders the sentence meaningless. Further, from the surrounding context, it is apparent that “or” was intended to be “of.” Viewed as a whole, the policy is unambiguous about a setoff for underinsured motorist coverage for payments received for or on behalf of persons legally responsible. Therefore, the trial court’s order was reversed.
In a related issue, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court determination in which it rejected statutory claims for misrepresentation under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and the Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Court of Appeals noted that the MCPA was amended before plaintiffs filed their complaint to abolish claims against insurance companies. MCL 445.904(2). Further, courts of this State have consistently held that a private cause of action does not exist under the UTPA.
