Michigan Insurance Company v. Posen Chamber of Commerce, 330176

A Bump-n-Run race at the Posen Potato Festival resulted in a vehicle being pushed into a dirt-filled tire that was propelled into a fence, seriously injuring Jason Risteau.
Risteau sued the Posen Chamber of Commerce (among others); the Chamber’s general liability insurer, Michigan Insurance Company, sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify.
The insurer relied on a policy exclusion for injuries “arising out of the use of ‘mobile equipment’ in . . . prearranged racing, speed, demolition, or stunting activity.”
The parties agreed the event was a prearranged racing/stunt activity; the dispute was whether Stewart’s race vehicle qualified as “mobile equipment.”
The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants, concluding the vehicle did not fall within the policy’s definition of “mobile equipment.”
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the race vehicle was a land vehicle designed principally for off-public-road use and therefore excluded from coverage; remanded to enter judgment for the insurer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stewart’s vehicle is “mobile equipment” under the policy definition	Vehicle is a land vehicle “designed for use principally off public roads” (modified for racing), so exclusion applies	Vehicle is not the same class as listed items (bulldozers, farm machinery, forklifts) and thus not intended to be covered by “other vehicles”	Court: Vehicle is a land vehicle designed principally for off-road use; qualifies as "mobile equipment"; exclusion applies
Whether ejusdem generis limits the general phrase to construction/farm/industrial vehicles	N/A (plaintiff argued plain meaning controls)	Trial court and defendants urged ejusdem generis to limit scope to items similar to listed examples	Court: Ejusdem generis inapplicable where phrase is limited by "designed for use principally off public roads" and plain meaning is clear; cannot override text

Rory v. Continental Ins. Co., 473 Mich 457 (Mich. 2005) (contracts of insurance construed using ordinary contract principles)
Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 314 Mich App 12 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (honor parties’ intent; plain language governs)
Busch v. Holmes, 256 Mich App 4 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (court looks to plain language to determine coverage scope)
Klapp v. United Ins. Group Agency, Inc., 468 Mich 459 (Mich. 2003) (contracts construed to give effect to every word or phrase)
Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich 358 (Mich. 1996) (summary disposition standard for C(10) motions)
Hampton v. Waste Mgmt. of Mich., Inc., 236 Mich App 598 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) (de novo review of summary disposition)
Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marlette Homes, Inc., 456 Mich 511 (Mich. 1998) (no judicial construction where language is clear and unambiguous)
Utica State Savings Bank v. Village of Oak Park, 279 Mich 568 (Mich. 1937) (ejusdem generis should not be applied where plain language reveals intent)