Pioneer State Mutual Insurance v. Dells
301 Mich. App. 368
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Hall was killed when a trailer towed by Dells’ van detached and struck Hall on Ten Mile Road, Kent County, Oct 28, 2009.
- AOIC insured Dells’ van for motor vehicle liability with a $100,000 limit; Pioneer insured Dells under a homeowner’s policy with $500,000 bodily injury coverage.
- Pioneer’s policy excludes bodily injury arising out of the use of motor vehicles and trailers, but includes an exception for a trailer not towed.
- Estate sought additional coverage under Pioneer for the wrongful-death damages; AOIC had tendered its policy limits.
- Before suit, there were settlement discussions; Pioneer warned that settlement could jeopardize its coverage; declaratory-judgment action filed Jan 2011; trial court granted Pioneer summary disposition.
- Court held the motor vehicle exclusion applied (not reaching the trailer-not-towed exception) and affirmed dismissal/denied coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motor vehicle exclusion bars coverage here | Estate argues exclusion is too strict; trailer-not-towed exception could apply | Pioneer contends use of motor vehicle (van) was indispensable to the injury; exclusion bars coverage | Yes; exclusion applies, coverage denied |
| If applicable, whether the trailer-not-towed exception would save coverage | Estate would rely on the exception | Pioneer argues exception not satisfied; still barred by use of motor vehicle | Even assuming the exception, coverage still barred; injury arising from towed trailer |
Key Cases Cited
- Nationwide Mut Ins Co v Integon Indemnity Corp., 123 N.C. App. 536 (N.C. App. 1996) (trailer in tow; damages arising from use of vehicle excluded)
- White v American Deposit Ins Co., 732 So. 2d 675 (La. App. 1999) (damages arising from towing use; trailer in tow regardless of impact)
- Henderson v State Farm Fire & Cas Co., 460 Mich. 348, 596 N.W.2d 190 (Mich. 1999) (strict construction of exclusions; ambiguity rule)
- Rory v Continental Ins Co., 473 Mich. 457, 703 N.W.2d 23 (Mich. 2005) (contract interpretation; exclusions interpreted against insurer when unambiguous)
- Hayley v Allstate Ins Co., 262 Mich. App. 571, 686 N.W.2d 273 (Mich. App. 2004) (read policy as a whole; enforce clear exclusions)
- Tenneco Inc v Amerisure Mut Ins Co, 281 Mich. App. 429, 761 N.W.2d 846 (Mich. App. 2008) (explicitly supportive of applying motor vehicle exclusions)