Meemic Insurance Co v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance
313 Mich. App. 94
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Owner John Putvin stored a 1966 Corvette in a commercial storage facility and had not driven it for over a year; he separately purchased comprehensive-only coverage for the Corvette from State Farm.
- Rick Putvin and Kip Cergenul performed maintenance on the Corvette at the facility; gasoline vapors ignited during fuel-line flushing and caused a fire that destroyed >$125,000 of personal property stored by Catherine Eppard and Kevin Byrnes.
- MEEMIC, which insured Eppard and Byrnes and paid their loss, sued various parties and ultimately added Home-Owners Insurance Company (Home-Owners) as a defendant, alleging Home-Owners was required under the no-fault act to pay property protection benefits.
- Home-Owners moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing the Corvette was not required to have no-fault property protection insurance and Home-Owners’ policy unambiguously excluded the unlisted Corvette.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for Home-Owners, concluding MCL 500.3101(1) permits an owner of a non-driven vehicle to delete no-fault coverages and keep only comprehensive coverage, so Home-Owners had no statutory obligation to pay.
- MEEMIC appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation and summary disposition de novo and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Home-Owners must pay property protection benefits under MCL 500.3125 for damage caused by a Corvette owned by its insured | MEEMIC: MCL 500.3125’s priority language obligates an insurer of an owner of a vehicle involved in the accident to pay, regardless of whether the policy listed that vehicle | Home-Owners: MCL 500.3101(1) allows deletion of no-fault coverages for vehicles not driven on highways; policy unambiguously excludes the Corvette, so no coverage | Court: MCL 500.3101(1) makes property protection optional for non-driven vehicles; because Putvin elected comprehensive-only and Home-Owners’ policy excluded unlisted/nonrequired vehicles, Home-Owners not liable |
| Whether the statutory priority in MCL 500.3125 overrides a lawful policy exclusion for a non-driven vehicle | MEEMIC: Priority provision requires payment by insurer of owner even if vehicle not specifically covered | Home-Owners: Priority must be read harmoniously with MCL 500.3101(1); when coverage is optional, the policy controls | Court: Read statutes harmoniously; where coverage optional, statutory priority does not compel payment and policy terms govern |
| Whether the policy language here covered the Corvette despite it not being listed or charged a premium | MEEMIC: Insurer of the owner should be treated as insurer of vehicle involved | Home-Owners: Policy defines "insured motor vehicle" as vehicles for which a premium is charged or those required to maintain security under MCL 500.3101(1); Corvette met neither | Court: Policy definition controls; Corvette was not an insured motor vehicle under the policy, so no coverage |
| Standard of review for summary disposition and statutory interpretation | MEEMIC: (implicit) argues trial court misapplied law | Home-Owners: summary disposition appropriate as no factual dispute; statutory text controls | Court: De novo review; determined no genuine issue of material fact and affirmed summary disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Huntington Nat’l Bank v. Daniel J. Aronoff Living Trust, 305 Mich. App. 496 (standard of review for summary disposition)
- Johnson v. Recca, 492 Mich. 169 (statutory interpretation principles; read statutes harmoniously)
- Husted v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 459 Mich. 500 (where no-fault coverage is not mandatory, policy terms govern coverage)
- Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 272 Mich. App. 106 (construction of no-fault priority provisions)
- Pioneer State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Titan Ins. Co., 252 Mich. App. 330 (interpretation of insurer priority under no-fault act)