McJIMPSON v. AUTO CLUB GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY
315 Mich. App. 353
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On April 5, 2012, an unidentified 18-wheeler traveling ahead of McJimpson shed a piece of metal that struck and shattered her windshield; the truck did not stop.
- McJimpson suffered cuts, bruises, and diagnosed shoulder and spinal injuries, and sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits from her insurer, Auto Club Group Insurance Co.
- The UM policy provided coverage where a hit-and-run motor vehicle of which the operator and owner are unknown makes “direct physical contact” with the insured or the insured’s vehicle.
- McJimpson conceded she was struck by an object cast off or propelled from the truck, not by the truck itself.
- Auto Club moved for partial summary disposition arguing the policy’s “direct physical contact” language does not cover injuries caused by objects cast off from a vehicle; the trial court denied the motion, finding ambiguity and construing the policy for the insured.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the policy’s requirement of “direct physical contact” is narrower than previously construed “physical contact” language and does not cover injuries from objects propelled by a disappearing vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UM coverage is triggered where an object cast off from a hit-and-run vehicle strikes the insured’s vehicle | McJimpson: policy language covers this loss; if ambiguous, interpret for insured | Auto Club: policy requires the vehicle itself to make direct contact; a propelled object is not enough | Court: "direct physical contact" is unambiguous and requires the vehicle itself to strike the insured or insured’s vehicle; no coverage |
| Whether the term "direct physical contact" is ambiguous | McJimpson: clause ambiguous; prior cases support coverage; resolve ambiguity for insured | Auto Club: phrase is plain and excludes indirect contact by propelled objects | Court: phrase is not ambiguous in this UM context; it narrows coverage as written |
| Whether prior doctrine permitting indirect contact (substantial physical nexus) applies | McJimpson: relies on cases allowing indirect contact where an object is cast off | Auto Club: distinguishes those cases as addressing different policy language | Court: those cases applied to broader "physical contact" language; they do not control where policy requires "direct" contact |
| Proper standard on summary disposition given deposition evidence | McJimpson: factual dispute exists about contact type | Auto Club: undisputed facts show only object contact, entitling insurer to judgment as matter of law | Court: accepted undisputed facts and applied contract interpretation de novo in insurer’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Rory v. Continental Ins. Co., 473 Mich 457 (UM coverage is contractual; unambiguous policy terms control)
- Dancey v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co., 288 Mich App 1 (examples of broader UM provisions that can reach propelled objects)
- Hill v. Citizens Ins., 157 Mich App 383 (explains distinction between direct and indirect physical contact)
- Berry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 219 Mich App 340 (physical contact construed to include indirect contact with a substantial physical nexus)
- Wills v. State Farm Ins. Co., 222 Mich App 110 (indirect contact via object cast off can satisfy policies using "physical contact")