Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #283624; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald; Talbot, and Shapiro; 2-1 (Shapiro dissenting); per curiam
Official Michigan Report Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability policy exclusions for business use [3131]
Liability exclusions for family member claims [3131]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Leased/Rented Vehicles
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition for plaintiff, finding that the at-fault driver, who was driving her father’s vehicle that he leased from DaimlerChrysler Corporation, was not covered under the liability policy at issue, in which DaimlerChrysler and its employees were the only named insureds.
The plaintiff in this case brought a civil action following the death of her decedent, who sustained fatal injuries when a vehicle driven by defendant, Kelly Rose Brooks, collided with a vehicle driven by the decedent. In the underlying action, plaintiff filed claims against Brooks and the owner of the vehicle Brooks was driving. After the insurer of the vehicle that Brooks was driving settled, plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action against defendant DaimlerChrysler Insurance Company (DCIC), DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Brooks, and her father, James E. Trent. Trent leased a car from DaimlerChrysler which was insured through DCIC. Plaintiff claimed that the insurance policy issued by DCIC covered Brooks because she was a family member insured under the policy. DCIC moved for summary disposition, which the trial court denied.
In reversing, the Court of Appeals noted that the policy defined who was an insured and that definition, although it included Trent or persons using the covered vehicle with DaimlerChrysler’s permission, the policy did not cover Trent or his family members when such individuals were using an automobile not owned by DaimlerChrysler. Therefore, the court determined that coverage did not extend to Brooks. The court stated that its interpretation was based upon the clear language of the policy and, therefore, it noted that the trial court was required to apply the policy as written and that it erred in finding an ambiguity where none existed. In this regard, the court stated:
“The policy language describes unambiguously who is insured under the policy. The policy does not extend to Trent or his family members when such persons use an automobile not owned by DaimlerChrysler, as provided in the endorsement. Therefore, coverage does not extend to Brooks under the circumstances of this case. This interpretation is based on the clear language of the policy. The court was required to apply the policy as written. It erred in creating an ambiguity where none exists and looking outside the policy language in determining its meaning.”
