Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #236260; Unpublished
Judges Talbot, Neff and Fitzgerald; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contracts (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed partial summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff on issues of PIP and uninsured motorist coverage, finding that the policy language regarding who is an insured under the policy was ambiguous, and therefore to be construed against the insurance company.
Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Universal Underwriters Insurance, which policy included coverage for uninsured and underinsured motorist benefits, as well as PIP coverage. The policy provided coverage for both the plaintiff’s business activities as the owner of an automotive and truck repair corporation, as well as two personal vehicles. Plaintiff was injured at his place of business when a customer brought a wrecker truck in for repair, and when starting it up, the vehicle lurched forward and pinned plaintiff against the wall. The wrecker truck was uninsured. The plaintiff claimed uninsured motorist benefits under the Universal Underwriters policy, as well as PIP benefits under that same policy. Universal Underwriters denied both claims, alleging that plaintiff Kief was not an insured under the policy, but rather the policy was issued to his business only.
The declaration page of the policy under “named insured” listed both the business and Mr. Kief individually.
Additionally, in the uninsured motorist coverage portion of the policy, the definition of “who is an insured” defined an insured as follows:
“WHO IS AN INSURED – With respect to this Coverage Part:
(1) YOU;
(2) any of YOUR partners, paid employees, directors, stockholders, executive officers, or any FAMILY MEMBER while OCCUPYING A COVERED AUTO; . . .
‘YOU’ and ‘YOUR’ are defined in the policy as ‘the person or organization shown in the declarations as the Named Insured.’”
With regard to PIP coverage, defendant conceded that under section 3114(1), such coverage applies “to the person named in the policy.” Defendant claimed, however, that the declaration page of the policy listed only Dearborn Total Automotive as a named insured, and therefore, plaintiff was not covered for PIP benefits.
The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was unmistakably a “named insured” on the declarations page. At best, defendant’s reliance on certain “code numbers” listed under a later heading of “insureds” with regard to each coverage, rendered the policy ambiguous, and the policy was to be construed against the defendant in favor of coverage. The court noted that defendant’s argument that the only insured for purposes of PIP benefits is that business makes neither legal nor common sense.
With regard to uninsured motorist coverage, the language in clause 2 of the definition of “who is an insured” was ambiguous and therefore to be construed against defendant and in favor of coverage. Defendant contended that the definition of insured in subparagraph 2 required that plaintiff be “occupying a covered auto” when injured. Plaintiff presented evidence from an expert linguist concluding that the clause was ambiguous with respect to the coverage of “partners, employees, directors, etc.” who are not occupying a covered auto.
The Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiff that he was an insured for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage because the word “or” is not normally interchangeable with the word “and.” Use of the word “or” in paragraph 2 of the definition of who is an insured indicates that the term is a disjunctive separation of the two clauses in that definition. Therefore, only family members needed to be occupying the covered auto for the condition of being an insured for purposes of uninsured motorist benefits, whereas “partners, paid employees, directors, stockholders and executive officers” were not required to be occupying the vehicle to be entitled to make a claim under the uninsured motorist coverage.
