Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 321492; Unpublished
Judges K.F. Kelly, Cavanagh, and Saad; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Interpretation of Insurance Contracts
Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that Farmers Insurance Exchange properly denied plaintiff’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits, because plaintiff did not comply with the policy’s notice requirements.
Plaintiff in this case was driving his sister’s vehicle when he was injured in an accident. First responders never came to the scene and police had no record of the 911 calls allegedly placed by plaintiff. Plaintiff did not exchange information with the other driver, for unknown reasons, had a friend pick him and take him home, and the vehicle was towed. Plaintiff’s sister had a no-fault policy with defendant Farmers Insurance, which provided uninsured motorist coverage for both her and plaintiff. The policy including the following provision: “Notice. In the event of an accident, or loss, notice must be given to us [i.e., Famers] promptly. The notice must give the time, place, and circumstances of the accident, or loss, including the names and addresses of injured persons and witnesses. Other Duties. A person claiming any coverage of this policy must also: … 6. Notify police within 24 hours and us within 30 days if a hit-and-run motorist is involved and an uninsured motorist claim is to be filed.” Plaintiff’s sister, as the policyholder, claimed she contacted Farmers within a week of plaintiff’s accident and Farmers told her the car was a total loss. Farmers, however, disputed this version of the events and claimed it was not notified of the accident until nearly two months after it occurred, when plaintiff’s sister requested benefits. Farmers denied benefits on the basis that it was not notified within 30 days of the accident and that police were not notified within 24 hours of the accident, as required by the policy. Plaintiff then filed this action seeking PIP benefits. Farmers moved for summary disposition, arguing the required notice was not provided. The trial court granted the motion.
The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits because plaintiff’s sister, as the policyholder, did not comply with the notice provisions in the policy by not contacting the police within 24 hours of the accident.
In this regard, the Court of Appeals said:
“[W]hen the documentary evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, ‘a genuine issue of material fact’ exists and a trial must be held to properly resolve the matter. … The trial court therefore erred when it granted summary disposition to Famers on this basis. However, there is no issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s sister (or plaintiff himself) notified police within 24 hours of the accident. By his own admission, neither plaintiff nor his sister contacted the police to tell them of the accident within 24 hours of July 26, 2012. Instead, the other driver and a bystander to the accident — two individuals who are not ‘person[s] claiming any coverage of [the] policy’ — allegedly called 911 on the night of the accident. The failure of plaintiff or his sister to inform the police of the accident within 24 hours of the accident is fatal to plaintiff’s suit because the insurance policy at issue clearly requires the ‘person claiming any coverage of [the] policy’ to ‘notify police within 24 hours of the accident.’”
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was properly granted to Farmers, although for an improper reason, and affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
