Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 85313; Published
Judges Danhof, Shepherd and Hobson; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 163 Mich App 656; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this case, the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition on a coverage question concerning a motorcycle.
Plaintiff was injured when the motorcycle he was riding collided with an automobile. The automobile was uninsured, and plaintiff’s motorcycle was insured under a policy providing compensation only for damages sustained by other persons or his passengers. Plaintiff filed a claim with Farm Bureau for uninsured motorist benefits under the uninsured motorist provision of a policy issued by Farm Bureau to plaintiff’s mother, covering a car owned by his mother. Plaintiff lived with his mother and was thereby covered as an insured.
Farm Bureau denied coverage under the uninsured motorist provision based upon the "owned vehicle exclusion." This exclusion provided that the policy "did not apply to injury to an insured while occupying an automobile owned by the named insured or a relative. . . ." Farm Bureau claimed that
plaintiff’s motorcycle was a motor vehicle that he owned, but was not insured and thus plaintiff could not recover.
The trial court ruled that plaintiff was covered under the policy because a motorcycle was not an "automobile" under the "owned-vehicle exclusion." The Court of Appeals reversed and held that under the broad policy definition of an automobile as a "land motor vehicle" designed to be used principally upon public roads, the motorcycle met the definition of a "motor vehicle." In reliance upon Auto-Owners v Ellegood, 149 Mich App 673 (1986), the Court held that in both the ordinary and technical sense, the term "motor vehicle" unambiguously included a motorcycle. The Court of Appeals also held that the "owned vehicle exclusion" was clearly and unambiguously stated and was valid and enforceable under the rules enunciated in Powers v DAIIE (Item No. 979).
