Peter Edward Duato v. Denise Elaine Mellon, 349 Mich. App. 22

Plaintiff, a Lyft driver, rented a 2019 Honda Elantra from Flexdrive under a weekly, renewable rental agreement from August 2019 until the April 26, 2020 collision.
The Elantra was insured by Indian Harbor (Flexdrive’s insurer); plaintiff also had a separate personal policy with Progressive that provided UIM benefits but excluded coverage for injury while using a vehicle "owned by or available for the regular use of you."
Plaintiff drove the Elantra as his primary vehicle for Lyft work (about 30 hours/week) and accrued roughly 34,500 miles during the rental period; the rental agreement limited other drivers and restricted personal mileage without extra fees.
Progressive moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing the Elantra was "available for the regular use" of plaintiff and thus excluded from UIM coverage; plaintiff argued the phrase was ambiguous and that Flexdrive retained dominion and control over the vehicle.
The trial court granted Progressive’s motion, finding the Elantra was accessible for plaintiff’s normal, recurring use and under his exclusive control; plaintiff’s reconsideration motion was denied and he appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Elantra was "available for the regular use" of plaintiff, thereby triggering the Policy exclusion and barring UIM benefits	The phrase is ambiguous and should be construed for the insured; Flexdrive retained dominion/control and plaintiff’s use was not continuous or "regular" (did not exceed personal mileage allotment and use was subject to rental terms)	"Available for regular use" means present, ready, accessible for normal recurring use; plaintiff had exclusive, continuous access and regularly used the car for Lyft, so exclusion applies	Affirmed. No genuine issue of material fact: plaintiff had recurring, exclusive, nearly unfettered access and used the Elantra continuously, so it was available for his regular use and excluded from UIM coverage.

Auto Owners Ins Co v Seils, 310 Mich App 132 (explains MCR 2.116(C)(10) standard and use of dictionary to determine plain contract meaning)
State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Burbank, 190 Mich App 93 (defines "regular" use in insurance-exclusion context as usual, normal, recurring)
Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459 (contracts must be construed to give effect to every word and avoid surplusage)
Auto-Owners Ins Co v Churchman, 440 Mich 560 (exclusionary clauses are construed favorably to insured but clear exclusions are enforced)
Dawson v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich, 293 Mich App 563 (UIM coverage governed by the policy language rather than statute)