Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #252084; Unpublished
Judges Gage, Cavanagh and Griffin; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for State Farm on plaintiff’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits, finding that even though the at-fault driver’s insurer was bankrupt, plaintiff was paid the damages to which she was entitled by a guarantee association on the insolvent insurer’s behalf. In this case, plaintiff sought to obtain benefits under her uninsured motor vehicle policy, arguing entitlement to the benefits because the insurer of the other driver involved in the accident was insolvent thereby satisfying the policy definition of “uninsured vehicle.” In affirming the trial court decision, the Court of Appeals noted that even though defendant’s uninsured motorist policy provided benefits if the other driver’s insurer subsequently became insolvent, the policy also provided that benefits would be reduced by payments made “by or for” an entity that may be legally liable for the injury. The court found that because a guarantee association paid the benefits plaintiff was owed, under the terms of the policy plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured benefits. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to recover under her uninsured motorist policy because the insurance company for the other driver involved in the accident was insolvent. But, a guaranty association took over the administration of claims against the insolvent insurer and plaintiff reached a settlement of these claims with the guaranty association following facilitation. Under the unambiguous limits of liability section of her uninsured motorist policy, this settlement was reached ‘by or for any person or organization who may be held legally liable for the bodily injury to the insured’ and, thus, may be set off against benefits payable under the uninsured policy. Plaintiff’s argument that the terms of the limits of liability section do not apply because the guaranty association was not ‘legally liable’ for plaintiff’s injuries is without merit. The terms are clearly applicable–the guaranty association agreed to pay plaintiff, the insured, a sum specific ‘by or for’ the insolvent insurer who ‘is or may be held legally liable for the bodily injury to the insured.’ The language in the Facilitation Order in no way affects the language of the insurance policy. Therefore, the trial court correctly concluded that defendant was entitled to claim a setoff against the coverage limits and, because settlement exceeded the coverage limits, properly dismissed the case.”
