Collins v. National General Insurance, 834 F. Supp. 2d 632

Plaintiff Naomi Collins represents the deceased insured from a July 29, 2009, motorcycle collision caused by an intoxicated driver (Calvin Smith).
The vehicle was owned by Dorothy Lee Berrien and insured under a Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest policy.
The decedent was insured under National General’s uninsured motorist (UIM) policy at the time of the accident.
Citizens rescinded the policy after uncovering material misrepresentations and initially denied liability for Plaintiff’s claims.
Citizens later acknowledged a statutory obligation to provide minimum coverage and a Wayne County court reformed the Citizens policy to cover only the minimum required by Michigan law.
National General denied coverage under the UIM policy, arguing Citizens’ reform and the timing of any denial could foreclose UIM coverage; the court held Citizens’ denial to be effective and granted Plaintiff’s summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Citizens’ denial qualifies as denial of coverage under the UIM policy	Collins argues Citizens denied coverage at the time of loss, triggering UIM coverage.	National General contends Citizens’ later reform defeats denial and thus precludes UIM coverage.	Yes; denial is effective under the UIM contract and triggers coverage.
Whether Citizens’ policy reform after the accident affects the denial’s effect	Reformation cannot erase prior denial for purposes of UIM.	Reformation may change coverage but does not retroactively negate denial for UIM.	No; the denial remains operative for UIM purposes regardless of reform.
Whether the UIM term “uninsured motor vehicle” is governed by the contract’s defined terms	Defined term controls; if insurer denies coverage, vehicle is uninsured.	The term may be read ambiguously or differently from common usage.	Uninsured motor vehicle includes a vehicle whose insurer denies coverage, as defined by the contract.
Whether the court should consider the policy language unambiguously interpreted	Contract terms are unambiguous and require enforcement as written.	Terms may be ambiguous and require further interpretation.	Unambiguous; terms enforced as written.
Whether the denial of coverage was timely and properly considered	Citizens consistently denied coverage from September 14, 2009 onward.	Timeliness or form of denial could be disputed.	The denial was timely and effective under the contract.

Rory v. Continental Ins. Co., 703 N.W.2d 23 (Mich. 2005) (contractual definitions control when unambiguous)
Klapp v. United Ins. Group Agency, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 447 (Mich. 2003) (require interpretation consistent with contract text)
Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nikkel, 596 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. 1999) (undefined terms given their common meaning; avoid surplusage)
Citizens Ins. Co. v. Pro-Seal Serv. Group, Inc., 730 N.W.2d 682 (Mich. 2007) (uninsured motorist coverage interpreted under contract terms)
Uhl v. Komatsu Forklift Co., 512 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2008) (state law applied in diversity; contract terms control)