Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 242500; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Neff, and White; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court grant of summary disposition for plaintiff on the issue of whether or not defendant’s uninsured motorist coverage was excluded because the injured party occupied a vehicle “owned by a household member” where the occupied vehicle was in fact owned by a trust and furnished for the plaintiff’s mother’s use.
Plaintiff was injured when the vehicle in which she was riding was struck by an uninsured vehicle. The vehicle in which she was riding was furnished for her mother’s use by the Tupperware Company and was titled in the name of a trust. Plaintiff received uninsured motorist benefits from Travelers Insurance which insured the vehicle. Auto Club insured vehicles owned by plaintiff’s family, but did not insure the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding when she was injured. Plaintiff claimed uninsured motorist benefits under Auto Club’s policy, which Auto Club denied under the “other owned vehicle” exclusion in its policy. Under that exclusion, plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits if at the time of her accident she was occupying a vehicle that was “owned by a member of her household but was not insured by defendant.”
Plaintiff claimed that the exclusion on which defendant relied was inapplicable because the vehicle in which she was riding when she was injured was not owned by a member of her household, but rather was titled in the name of a trust. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s policy did not define the term “owned” and, therefore, that term must be construed in her favor. Defendant argued that the statutory definition of owner in §3101(2)(g) should apply, and that the mother should be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle by reason of her having use of the vehicle for a period of greater than 30 days.
In upholding the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff, the court relied on the Court of Appeals decision in Twichel v MIC General Insurance Corporation, 251 Mich App 476; 650 NW2d 428 (2002), which held that where the term “owner” is undefined in the contract, reference to either dictionary or statutory definitions is reasonable and, therefore, the term is ambiguous and must be construed against the drafter.
In this case, because the definition of the term “owner” in defendant’s policy is, at best, ambiguous, the exclusion does not apply.
[Editor’s Note: Twichel v MIC General Insurance Corporation, 251 Mich App 476 (2002), has since been reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court, RB #2426, supra, and therefore, the holding in this case is questioned.]
