 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stoddard v. Citizens Insurance Company of America1/29/2002
FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant in this breach of contract action following defendant's denial of plaintiff's claim for uninsured motorist coverage. We reverse.
I.
This appeal stems from plaintiff's claim for uninsured motorist coverage under plaintiff's husband's commercial automobile insurance policy. On October 11, 1996, while driving a car owned by her employer, plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident with an uninsured motorist. Plaintiff's employer, Ciba Vision, did not carry uninsured motorist coverage on the automobile she was driving. Plaintiff filed a claim under Citizens' insurance policy covering her husband's landscaping business, Stoddard's Lawn Shapers, a sole proprietorship, on the basis that she was an insured under the policy's uninsured motorist endorsement. When defendant denied her claim, plaintiff filed a breach of contract action against defendant. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant, concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage because the accident did not involve the vehicle covered under defendant's policy:
The policy states in the schedule of coverages that the uninsured coverage applies only for covered autos as described in item three of the declaration. The only vehicle listed there is a 1995 Ford pick up. Thus, the vehicle which Plaintiff was driving is not a vehicle for which the uninsured coverage applies.
We disagree.
II.
This case presents an issue of first impression concerning uninsured motorist coverage under Michigan's no-fault insurance system. Stated simply, the issue is whether the automobile policy's uninsured motorist protection follows the person ("the insured") or the vehicle ("the covered auto"). Defendant argues that under the policy at issue, the only vehicle covered for uninsured motorist protection is a 1995 Ford pick-up, which was not involved in the accident; thus, there is no coverage. Plaintiff argues that under the terms of the policy, uninsured motorist protection is provided to an "insured"; she is an "insured" under the policy; none of the exclusions to the uninsured motorist coverage apply; thus, plaintiff is entitled to coverage.
III.
This Court reviews the trial court's grant of a motion for summary disposition de novo as a question of law. Ardt v Titan Ins Co, 233 Mich App 685, 688; 593 NW2d 215 (1999). Because uninsured motorist coverage is not required by statute, the language of the insurance policy determines the conditions of coverage. Auto-Owners Ins Co v Harvey, 219 Mich App 466, 470; 566 NW2d 517 (1996). An insurance policy that is clear and unambiguous must be enforced in accordance with its terms. Id. at 469. Where the terms of an insurance policy are ambiguous, the ambiguity must be construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured. Id. If a fair reading of the entire contract of insurance leads to a conclusion that there is coverage under particular circumstances, and another fair reading results in a conclusion that there is not coverage under the same circumstances, the contract is ambiguous. Auto Club Ins Ass'n v DeLaGarza, 433 Mich 208, 213; 444 NW2d 803 (1989).
A.
Historically, in Michigan, uninsured motorist protection was considered "portable," that is, it followed the person. Consequently, uninsured motorist protection covered bodily injury of the insured whenever the claim involved an uninsured motorist, whether the claimant was in the covered auto, in another vehicle, or injured as a pedestrian: "The insured and family members a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|