Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 188559; Published
Judges Gribbs, Markey, and Kavanagh; Unanimous (with Kavanagh not Participating); Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 222 Mich App 110; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curiam published Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that uninsured motorist benefits are not payable where the insured is injured in a car crash as a result of running off the road after gunshots were fired from an unidentified vehicle.
Plaintiff was driving a vehicle insured by defendant when an unidentified vehicle pulled alongside him and its occupants fired gunshots at him. The plaintiff ducked down in his car to avoid the gunfire, and in the process, collided with two trees, resulting in personal injuries being sustained by him.
Plaintiff was insured under a policy issued by defendant providing uninsured motorist coverage for bodily injury the insured would be able to recover from the owner or the driver of an uninsured motor vehicle. The policy defined the term "uninsured motor vehicle" to be a hit-and-run vehicle whose owner or driver remains unknown and which strikes either the insured or the vehicle in which the insured is occupying. The case was submitted to the trial court on a stipulated set of facts was whether plaintiffs bodily injury was caused by an accident arising out of the operation, maintenance or use of an "uninsured motor vehicle," as that term is defined within the defendant's policy. The trial court granted summary disposition, found that it was, and ruled in favor of plaintiff.
The Court of Appeals reversed, noting that an uninsured motorist policy's requirement of "physical contact" has been construed to include indirect physical contact, so long as a "substantial physical nexus" exists between the unidentified vehicle and the object cast off by that vehicle that strikes the insured's vehicle. Here, the court found that the substantial nexus required was not present, and stated in this regard as follows:
"Thus, where it is undisputed that an occupant of an unidentified vehicle moving alongside plaintiffs vehicle shoots at and hits plaintiffs vehicle, i.e., the projectile here came from a gun, not from the vehicle itself, plaintiff cannot show the requisite substantial physical nexus between the unidentified vehicle and himself or his vehicle."
The Court of Appeals contrasted its holding in this regard to its other previous decisions, where the object causing injury was cast off from the disappearing vehicle itself, rather than from an instrumentality of its occupants.
