Learn more about Sinas Dramis

Injured? Contact us for a free consultation


Said and Alasri v Auto Club; (COA-PUB, 6/2/1986; RB #920)


Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 82915; Published  
Judges Kelly, Walsh, and Wahls; Unanimous; Per Curiam  
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 152 Mich App 240; Link to Opinion alt    

Not Applicable

Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Arbitration of Uninsured Motorist Claims    

In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Kelly, involving an uninsured motorist arbitration, the court agreed with the holding in Auto Club v Methner (Item No. 664) and upheld the validity of an uninsured motorist policy requirement that there be physical contact in a hit and run situation before uninsured motorist benefits are payable. In light of the fact that the arbitrators very possibly could have denied plaintiffs' claim on the basis that there was no physical contact, the court specifically refused to consider the question whether or not it was proper to require plaintiff to prove serious impairment of body function in order to recover uninsured motorist benefits. The court stated, "As defendant notes, the arbitrators may have found that plaintiffs were not injured as a result of this accident. Appellate review of this issue is not possible on this record, and we thus do not find it relevant to discuss any conflict of authority between panels of this court."

Copyright © 2020 Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)