James Overbeek v. Fremont Insurance Company, 329339

James Overbeek was injured while helping launch a boat at a river ramp with guide John Matson III; Matson had left the truck in drive, the truck rolled, and Overbeek’s arm was pinned between a truck tire and a concrete step.
Matson was insured by Fremont under a marine policy with a Boatowners Liability endorsement (BO-20) and a River Guide Charter Use endorsement (BO-33); BO-22 excluded injury "resulting from transporting the insured boat(s) or trailer(s) on land."
Fremont sought summary disposition arguing the loss was excluded because the boat/trailer were being "transported" and alternatively that BO-33 did not cover the on-shore activity that caused the injury.
The trial court denied Fremont’s motion, concluding the policy covered Overbeek’s injury; parties settled subject to Fremont’s right to appeal.
The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the policy provided coverage and whether exclusions applied, focusing on the meaning of "transporting."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BO-22 exclusion for injuries "resulting from transporting the insured boat(s) or trailer(s) on land" bars coverage	Overbeek: boat/trailer were not being "transported"; they had arrived at the launch and transportation had ceased	Fremont: launching is part of transporting; trailer still part of transport even if temporarily stopped	Held: "transporting" requires an ongoing act of moving from one place to another; transportation had ceased at the launch, so exclusion did not apply
Whether BO-33’s on-shore guide-activity extension covers the injury	Overbeek: on-shore guide activities are covered, so endorsement extends coverage	Fremont: launching is not an on-shore guide activity exempt from the vehicle-use exclusion	Held: Court declined to decide because BO-22 did not bar coverage; resolution unnecessary (moot)

Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 302 Mich. App. 113 (addresses standard of review for summary disposition)
City of Grosse Pointe Park v. Mich. Mun. Liability & Prop. Pool, 473 Mich. 188 (de novo review of insurance policy interpretation)
Titan Ins. Co. v. Hyten, 491 Mich. 547 (insurance policies interpreted as contracts)
Davis v. LaFontaine Motors, Inc., 271 Mich. App. 68 (discern intent from contract language)
Klapp v. United Ins. Group Agency, Inc., 468 Mich. 459 (ambiguous contracts and interpretation principles)
Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Mich. v. Nikkel, 460 Mich. 558 (party disagreement does not render contract ambiguous)
Hunt v. Drielick, 496 Mich. 366 (insured bears burden to prove coverage; insurer must prove exclusions)
Henderson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 460 Mich. 348 (use of common meanings in policy terms)
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Seils, 310 Mich. App. 132 (dictionary use to define undefined policy terms)
B P 7 v. Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich. App. 356 (appellate courts avoid deciding moot issues)