Jodi Perry v. Robert J Perry
330966
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Perry, plaintiff, was a passenger in a Honda Pilot driven by her husband Robert Perry, who rear-ended another vehicle; Progressive insured the Pilot.
- Policy provides Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM) coverage of $250,000 per person / $500,000 per accident.
- Plaintiff alleged Robert Perry was negligent and that she was entitled to UM/UIM benefits as an underinsured motorist.
- Progressive moved for summary disposition arguing the policy’s definition of uninsured motor vehicle incorporates underinsured motorist concepts and that the Pilot did not qualify.
- Trial court denied Progressive’s motion, finding ambiguity; appellate leave to appeal granted; court now reverses and remands for entry of summary disposition in Progressive’s favor.
- Policy language reads that a vehicle that is owned by a named insured or a relative, or that is a covered auto, is excluded from uninsured motorist coverage; the Pilot was a covered auto owned by a named insured (Perry) and thus not an uninsured/underinsured vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UM/UIM benefits are recoverable under the policy. | Perry argues UM/UIM applies and Pilot qualifies as an underinsured vehicle. | Progressive argues policy excludes coverage for vehicles owned by named insured or covered autos, including the Pilot. | No UM/UIM recovery; policy excludes Pilot as a covered auto owned by a named insured. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v State Farm Fire & Cas Co, 460 Mich 348 (1999) (read policy terms strictly; enforce contracts as written)
- McGrath v Allstate Ins Co, 290 Mich App 434 (2010) (read insurance terms in their entirety to give effect to every word)
- Mate v Wolverine Mut Ins Co, 233 Mich App 14 (1998) (UM/UIM scope governed by contract and law, not statutory mandate)
- Wilkie v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 469 Mich 41 (2003) (contract interpretation governs policy terms)
- Cuddington v United Health Servs, Inc, 298 Mich App 264 (2012) (de novo review of whether summary disposition is appropriate with documentary evidence)