Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Pyles v MIC General insurance Corporation; (COA-UNP, 2/21/2003, RB #2363)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #237712; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, White and Hoekstra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion courthouse graphic


STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable

TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contracts (Meaning and Intent)
Underinsured Motorist Coverage: Underinsured Motorist Coverage in General


CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits under the language of the policy, because the policy stated that coverage was not available unless the limits of the underinsured tortfeasor’s coverage were less than the limits of the plaintiff’s underinsured motorist coverage and, in this case, the two were identical. The court noted that underinsured motorist coverage is not mandated by statute and, therefore, the scope and limitations of such coverage is governed by the language of the policy itself and by contract law. This policy language was not ambiguous, in that defendant’s policy “specifically refers to the ‘limit of liability’ for underinsured motorist coverage, and not to the amount of insurance proceeds actually available to injured insureds.” Accordingly, plaintiff’s reliance on the Court of Appeals decision in Wilkie v Auto-Owners was misplaced.


Michigan auto accident attorney Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit SinasDramis.com.

Copyright © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)

FacebookInstagram