Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 348408; Unpublished
Judges Gleicher, Sawyer, and Meter; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits
Underinsured Motorist Benefits
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing the plaintiff’s action to recover uninsured motorist benefits. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff received multiple settlements arising out of the subject motor vehicle crash that, in the aggregate, exceeded his insurance policy’s applicable per-person coverage limit for UIM benefits, and that plaintiff was therefore not entitled to pursue UIM benefits under the policy.
The plaintiff’s decedent, Emanuel Malaj, was involved in a single-vehicle crash in which he and two friends were killed. There were five people occupying the vehicle, which was titled in the name of Robert Cerrito but possessed, used, and insured by Gregory and Dawn Bobchick, at the time of the crash. After the crash, plaintiff sought UM and UIM benefits against Citizens, asserting that, “although the subject insurance policy set forth limits of UM and UIM coverage of ‘$250,000 Each Person, $500,000 Each Occurrence,’ the estate should be paid because there was a $250,000 UM claim and a $250,000 UIM claim.” This was so, plaintiff argued, “because the [vehicle’s] owner, Robert Cerrito, was uninsured, and that other legally responsible persons . . . were uninsured.” Eventually, plaintiff received two separate settlements from two different parties to the crash, which together exceeded the per-person UIM policy limit of $250,000. In response, Citizens moved for summary disposition as to plaintiff’s UIM claim, invoking the policy’s language which “specially precluded duplicate recovery ‘for any element of loss for which payment had been made,’” as well as summary disposition as to plaintiff’s UM claim, asserting that, although Cerrito was uninsured as the title holder, the vehicle was insured by the Bobchicks at the time of the crash. Ultimately, the trial court granted Citizens’ motion.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order in favor of Citizens, holding firstly that the vehicle involved in the crash was properly insured by the Bobchicks, and plaintiff’s claim for UM benefits therefore could not proceed.
In this case, there is no dispute that plaintiff’s decedent was killed in a single-vehicle crash of a 2008 Jaguar titled to Robert Cerrito but possessed and used by the Bobchicks and their son. It is also undisputed that before the accident the Bobchicks insured the Jaguar with Grange Insurance Company of Michigan, providing for liability coverage for personal injury up to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, and that Grange settled plaintiff’s liability claim against the Bobchicks for its policy limit of $100,000. The Jaguar was thus not an uninsured motor vehicle for purposes of defendant’s UM coverage. Consequently, under the undisputed facts and the plain terms of defendant’s insurance policy, the trial court correctly ruled that no UM coverage was available.
The Court of Appeals also held that “the trial court properly granted defendant summary disposition on the ground that there was no dispute that plaintiff received personal injury settlements arising from the single-vehicle accident that were greater than the insurance policy’s applicable per-person limit.”
Moreover, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the policy also clearly allowed defendant to offset against its UIM liability sums that plaintiff was able to collect from others who were potentially liable to plaintiff as a result of the motor vehicle accident. Indeed, the purpose of UM and UIM coverage is to make the insured whole, at least up to policy limits, for damages that the insured is unable to collect from responsible parties because they lack sufficient insurance coverage. See Rory, 473 Mich at 465; Andreson, 322 Mich App at 85-86. Again, in this case, at the time of the motion hearing, plaintiff had collected in settlement of personal injury claims arising out of the accident $266,666.67 from potentially responsible parties.
