Griffin Wasik v. Auto Club Insurance Association
992 NW2d 332
Mich. Ct. App.2022Background
- On icy roads an SUV (Ford Explorer) struck the rear passenger side of Mayer’s car while both were moving; hazard lights were turned on.
- The Explorer followed Mayer to a nearby parking lot; both drivers exited, inspected vehicles, found no damage or injuries, and mutually agreed not to contact police or exchange information.
- Plaintiff later developed symptoms and sought medical treatment; he claimed PIP and uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) benefits from Progressive and Auto Club under their UM policies.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing the Explorer was not a "hit-and-run vehicle" under the policies; the trial court granted the motions and dismissed plaintiff’s UM claims.
- On appeal the key question was whether the phrase "hit-and-run vehicle" covers a vehicle that stopped and remained available for an information exchange but left after the parties agreed no exchange was necessary.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, defining "hit-and-run vehicle" to mean a vehicle that strikes another and leaves before an opportunity to exchange identifying information, and holding the Explorer did not meet that definition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a vehicle that stopped, inspected damage with the other driver, and left after mutual agreement not to exchange information qualifies as a "hit-and-run vehicle" under UM policies | Mayer/Griffin: The phrase should be read in light of statutes (MCL 257.617 et seq.) or broader definitions; the Explorer’s conduct fits a "hit-and-run" under some definitions | Insurers: "Hit-and-run" requires the driver to leave before there is an opportunity to obtain identification; here the driver did not flee and an opportunity to exchange info existed | Court: "Hit-and-run vehicle" means a vehicle that hits and leaves before an opportunity to exchange information; because the drivers inspected the cars and could have exchanged information, the Explorer was not a hit-and-run vehicle; summary disposition affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- DeFrain v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 491 Mich. 359 (Mich. 2012) (contractual language governs optional UM coverage)
- Twichel v. MIC Gen. Ins. Corp., 469 Mich. 524 (Mich. 2003) (UM clauses construed by contract terms, not statute)
- McGrath v. Allstate Ins. Co., 290 Mich. App. 434 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (an undefined policy term is not necessarily ambiguous)
- Sylvester v. United Services Auto. Assoc. Cas. Ins. Co., 42 Conn. App. 219 (Conn. App. 1996) (driver who stopped and was dismissed by plaintiff not a hit-and-run)
- Kasid v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 776 N.W.2d 181 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (no hit-and-run where plaintiff had opportunity to obtain identifying information but did not)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Seaman, 96 Wash. App. 629 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (failure to prove driver fled; no hit-and-run for UM purposes)
- Zarder v. Humana Ins. Co., 324 Wis. 2d 325 (Wis. 2010) (term "hit-and-run" found ambiguous and construed in favor of coverage)
- Wilson v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 151 N.H. 782 (N.H. 2005) ("hit-and-run" susceptible to multiple reasonable meanings; ambiguity favors insured)
- Commerce Ins. Co. v. Mendonca, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 522 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003) (rejecting overly literal reading of "hit" and analyzing coverage gap concerns)
- Group Ins. Co. of Mich. v. Czopek, 440 Mich. 590 (Mich. 1992) (addresses perspective-based contract interpretation where policy language requires it)