Estate of Eugene Wayne Hunt v. Roger Drielick, 496 Mich. 366

On Jan. 12, 1996 a Drielick Trucking semi‑tractor driven "bobtail" (no trailer attached) was involved in a crash; plaintiffs sued driver and owner and obtained consent judgments; Empire Fire & Marine denied coverage under a non‑trucking (bobtail) policy.
Empire relied on a policy "business‑use" exclusion with two clauses: (1) no coverage "while a covered ‘auto’ is used to carry property in any business," and (2) no coverage "while a covered ‘auto’ is used in the business of anyone to whom the ‘auto’ is leased or rented."
Key dispute: whether the first clause precludes coverage when the semi‑tractor was not physically carrying attached property at the time of the accident, and whether a lease existed such that the second clause might apply.
Lower courts conflicted: Court of Appeals held the first clause could bar coverage even when the tractor was driving bobtail (relying on Griffie); trial court and plaintiffs argued coverage remained because no trailer was attached.
The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave, held the first clause excludes coverage only when the vehicle is actually carrying attached property in a business, and remanded for factual findings on whether a lease existed under the second clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the policy’s first clause (no coverage "while a covered auto is used to carry property in any business") bars coverage when the semi‑tractor was driving bobtail (no trailer attached) at the accident time	Hunt: clause requires vehicle actually be carrying attached property; bobtail operation is covered by the bobtail policy	Empire: clause bars coverage whenever the tractor is being used in the business of carrying property (i.e., whenever used in that business), even if momentarily without cargo	Court: first clause applies only when the tractor is physically carrying attached property in a business; bobtail operation is not excluded
Whether the policy’s second clause (no coverage while vehicle is used in the business of anyone to whom it is leased) applies here	Hunt: no written lease existed; factual question whether an oral/course‑of‑conduct lease existed and whether driver acted under its terms	Empire: contends lease or equivalent relationship existed such that the leasing clause applies to preclude coverage	Court: remanded for trial court fact‑finding whether a lease (as contemplated by the policy) existed and whether driver was acting under it at the time of the accident

Auto‑Owners Ins. Co. v. Churchman, 440 Mich. 560 (Mich. 1992) (general rules on insurance contract interpretation; exclusions strictly construed against insurer)
Group Ins. Co. of Mich. v. Czopek, 440 Mich. 590 (Mich. 1992) (enforce clear exclusions; give meaning to all contract terms)
Fresard v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 414 Mich. 686 (Mich. 1982) (insurer bears burden of proving absence of coverage)
Prestige Cas. Co. v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co., 99 F.3d 1340 (6th Cir. 1996) (defines ‘‘bobtail’’ insurance coverage)
Carriers Ins. Co. v. Griffie, 357 F. Supp. 441 (W.D. Pa. 1973) (earlier decision holding similar clause barred coverage even when vehicle momentarily without cargo)
Conn. Indem. Co. v. Stringfellow, 956 F. Supp. 553 (M.D. Pa. 1997) (disagrees with Griffie; exclusion applies only when vehicle is being used to carry property)
Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. v. Brada Miller Freight Sys., Inc., 423 U.S. 28 (U.S. 1975) (federal regulatory scheme requires written lease where equipment is leased to motor carrier)