Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company v. Gary Gustafson, 154026

Atlantic Casualty insured a commercial project and included an exclusion barring coverage for claims by "any property owner."
A dispute arose over the meaning of the exclusion when a claimant who was on the worksite sought recovery; lower courts considered whether the exclusion applied.
The Ontonagon Circuit Court granted Atlantic Casualty summary disposition, interpreting "any property owner" to exclude owners connected to the commercial project.
The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the phrase was ambiguous and required further construction.
The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal (no majority to grant leave), but two justices dissented: Chief Justice Markman would reinstate the trial-court summary disposition; Justice Wilder would reverse and remand for enforcement of the plain language.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the phrase "any property owner" in the policy exclusion is unambiguous and should be enforced as written	Phrase is plain and excludes any owner with a connection to the commercial project (or broadly any owner as written); enforce the exclusion	Phrase is ambiguous; must be limited to avoid rendering other policy language illusory and to reflect reasonable scope	Supreme Court denied leave to appeal; no majority. Dissents: Markman would reinstate summary disposition (read in project context); Wilder would enforce plain meaning and remand for enforcement.
Whether judicial notions of reasonableness can rewrite an unambiguous insurance contract term	Insurer: courts must enforce unambiguous contractual language as written; avoid resorting to "reasonableness" to alter clear terms	Opposing view: narrowing the phrase avoids absurd or illusory results and resolves perceived ambiguity	No majority decision; dissenters emphasize precedent requires enforcing unambiguous terms and disfavor judicial rewording.

Barton-Spencer v Farm Bureau Life Ins Co of Mich, 500 Mich 32 (defines ambiguity: equally susceptible to more than one meaning)
Nat’l Pride at Work v Governor, 481 Mich 56 (rules of interpretation normally yield a preferable interpretation)
Wilkie v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 469 Mich 41 (contracts read as a whole; contextual interpretation)
Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 472 Mich 521 (context and associated-words canon influence meaning)
DeFrain v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 491 Mich 359 (courts should not refuse to enforce unambiguous contract provisions based on judicial notions of reasonableness)
Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457 (unenforceable only if provision violates law or public policy; enforce plain terms)
Innovation Ventures v Liquid Mfg, 499 Mich 491 (primary obligation is to give effect to parties’ intent when interpreting contracts)