Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Lieb v Citizens Insurance Company; (COA- UNP, 1/23/1995; RB #1762)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 164079; Unpublished  
Judges Neff, Sawyer, and Jourdan; Unanimous; Per Curiam  
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:  Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt   


STATUTORY INDEXING:  
Not Applicable

TOPICAL INDEXING:  
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General  
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Physical Contact Requirement   


CASE SUMMARY:  
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary disposition in a case involving uninsured motorist coverage, where the plaintiffs' own testimony would disqualify them from receiving coverage, but other evidence offered by plaintiffs resulted in a question of fact as to whether coverage is available.  

The plaintiffs were injured in a vehicle rollover accident that occurred when they swerved to miss a large piece of plywood that blew off an unidentified lumber truck. Plaintiffs sought recovery for their injuries pursuant to the uninsured motorist coverage portion of their policy. The parties stipulated that in order for plaintiffs to recover, their automobile must have come into some physical contact with the piece of plywood.  

At their depositions, plaintiffs testified that they did not believe their vehicle came into contact with the plywood. However, in opposition to defendant's motion for summary disposition, plaintiffs presented an affidavit from an automobile body repair expert stating the damage to the front end of plaintiffs' car was consistent with being hit by the plywood. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in failing to consider the affidavit of the automobile body repair expert to create an issue of fact. While a party may not create a factual issue by contradicting his or her own previous testimony, the Court of Appeals held that such a rule does not apply when the party submits an affidavit of another witness to contradict their own testimony. Because of the factual dispute, the court found summary disposition was improperly granted. In addition, plaintiffs in this case had the depositions scheduled of other witnesses, who possibly could have provided additional factual issues. The Court of Appeals found that it was improper for the trial court to grant summary disposition before plaintiff had the opportunity to conduct this discovery.


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