Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #274626; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Markey, and Smolenski; 2-1 (Judge Smolenski concurring); per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition for plaintiff’s estate, finding that where the insured’s no-fault policy contained a household member exclusion, the exclusion applied to the estate of the deceased, who was a member of the insured’s household.
The insured person in this case, Patricia Overbeck, parked her car in a garage attached to her home but neglected to turn it off. Patricia and her husband, Gene Overbeck, were overcome by carbon monoxide and died. The Personal Representative of Gene Overbeck’s estate, sued Patricia Overbeck for wrongful death. At the time of the incident, Patricia’s vehicle was insured by defendant United Service Automobile Association (USAA) under a policy which provided for $500,000 per person liability coverage and $1,000,000 per accident coverage. However, the policy limited liability coverage for household member to $20,000. Based on that exclusion, USAA offered to settle for $20,000. Plaintiff refused and sued for declaratory judgment.
In reversing the trial court’s order granting plaintiff summary disposition, the Court of Appeals noted when the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion, it reasoned that the estate was not a member of the insured’s household. This reasoning, the Court of Appeals explained, was flawed, because under the Wrongful Death Act, the estate stands in the shoes of the deceased person. As a result, any legal obligation to pay the estate must be treated as an obligation to pay the deceased person. Because the deceased was a member of the insured’s family and resided with her, the exclusion applied. In this regard, the court stated:
“On appeal, USAA argues that the trial court erred when it determined that the exclusion did not apply. Specifically, USAA argues that, under the Wrongful Death Act, Gene’s estate stands in the shoes of Gene himself for all purposes incident to enforcement of the wrongful death claim. As a result, USAA further argues, a legal obligation to pay Gene’s estate, . . . must be treated as an obligation to pay Gene. Because Gene was a member of Patricia’s family and resided with her, USAA concludes, the exclusion applies. We agree. . . . A wrongful death claim ‘is a derivative one’ and ‘[t]he cause of action belongs to the deceased.’. . . A personal representative ‘stands in the deceased’s place for all purposes incident to the enforcement of that claim, including rights and privileges personal to the deceased in his lifetime.’. . . Because Gene and his estate are indistinguishable for the purpose of this litigation, and it is undisputed that Gene and Patricia resided together before their deaths, the exclusion applies.”
(emphasis in original)
