Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket.#265604; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, O’Connell, and Murray; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant, finding that although plaintiff was hit by two cars, he was only entitled to recover uninsurance benefits for one accident, rather than two, because there was only one “event.” The plaintiff in this case was struck in quick succession by two hit and run drivers as he was attempting to cross a street. Plaintiff sought benefits under his uninsurance policy with defendant, claiming he was involved in two accidents. Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff was only involved in one accident. The trial court agreed with defendant. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that under the plain meaning of the word “accident,” there is one incident or event. Therefore, for there to be more than one accident, there must be more than one separate event. In this case, plaintiff was struck by two vehicles in an uninterrupted succession so there was only one accident. In this regard, the court stated:
“The plain meaning of the word ‘accident’ denotes a ‘happening,’ ‘incident,’ or ‘event,’ Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2001), so it follows that, to be considered more than one ‘accident,’ the causes of damage must be readily distinguishable, either in temporal or spatial proximity, or in nature. The record here establishes a lightning quick, uninterrupted succession of blows dealt by similar vehicles, going similar speeds, moving in the same stream of traffic, and arising from the unitary recklessness of their drivers. The second impact flowed naturally from the first and occurred well before plaintiff reached safety.”
