Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 130715; Unpublished
Judges Hood, Wahls, and McDonald; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Underinsured Motorist Coverage: Underinsured Motorist Coverage in General
Underinsured Motorist Coverage: Setoffs Applicable to Underinsured Motorist Cases
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the validity of an underinsured motorist setoff provision that permitted underinsured motorist benefits to be reduced by any amounts paid to the injured person under the liability section of that policy. Although the court agreed that the setoff provision in question was "at best in artfully worded and clumsily arranged," it was not unambiguous when the policy was read in its entirety. The court stated, "if one remembers that Coverage A is the liability coverage, that Coverage D is the uninsured coverage, and that all provisions that apply to uninsured coverage also apply to underinsured coverage, then the setoff language admits to only one interpretation. Regardless of which benefits are sought or paid first, liability coverage and underinsured motorist coverage will always be setoff from each other. It is not impermissible or unconscionable to setoff payments made for the same type of loss, in this case, payments made for non-economic and excess economic losses."