Stephen Growe v. Ashley Woodfin, 330706

On May 27, 2015, plaintiff was riding a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and was struck by a vehicle driven by Ashley Woodfin; plaintiff alleged serious injuries.
Plaintiff sued vehicle driver Ashley and owner Annette Woodfin (owner-liability), and asserted a claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits against Home-Owners Insurance (defendant), which had issued a policy covering two cars (a 2015 Honda Civic and a 2015 Nissan Rogue).
Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing the motorcycle was insured under a different insurer’s policy and that defendant’s policy excluded UIM when the injured person is in an automobile meeting three criteria (designed for public roads; required registration; not insured for UIM under the policy).
Plaintiff relied on ¶ 2(b)(1)(a) of the policy, seeking UIM because he was not occupying an automobile covered under the policy’s Section II at the time of the accident (his motorcycle was not one of the listed cars).
Defendant relied on exclusion ¶ 3(b)(3) (UIM does not apply to “any person” injured while occupying or injured by any automobile owned or leased by such person if the three listed conditions are met); the parties agreed the motorcycle satisfied those three conditions.
Trial court denied defendant’s motion, reasoning that plaintiff’s reading was necessary to avoid rendering ¶ 2 meaningless; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the policy language unambiguous and the exclusion applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff is entitled to UIM under ¶ 2(b)(1)(a) because he was not occupying an automobile covered by Section II	¶ 2(b)(1)(a) provides UIM when plaintiff is not occupying an automobile covered by Section II, and at the accident he was on a motorcycle (not a listed car) so UIM applies	The general coverage provision exists but is subject to exclusions; coverage is not automatic if an exclusion applies	Denied: ¶ 2(b)(1)(a) would apply in some cases, but here the exclusion controls; plaintiff not entitled to UIM under ¶ 2(b)(1)(a) because exclusion applies
Whether exclusion ¶ 3(b)(3) (referring to “any person”) bars coverage for plaintiff despite policy using “you” elsewhere; and whether applying the exclusion renders coverage illusory	The phrase “any person” should not be read to include the named insured (“you”) given other provisions that distinguish “you” from “any person,” and treating ¶ 3(b)(3) as applying to plaintiff would make ¶ 2 meaningless	“Any person” is broad and includes plaintiff; the exclusion’s three predicates are met so it bars coverage. The illusory-coverage argument fails because there are situations where ¶ 2 provides real coverage	Held for defendant: exclusion ¶ 3(b)(3) is unambiguous, includes plaintiff, and precludes UIM here

Lakeview Commons v Empower Yourself LLC, 290 Mich App 503 (discussing de novo review of summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
Farmers Ins Exch v Kurzmann, 257 Mich App 412 (contract/policy construction principles; enforce clear policy language)
Allstate Ins Co v McCarn, 466 Mich 277 (undefined policy terms given common meaning)
Auto-Owners Ins Co v Harrington, 455 Mich 377 (first determine coverage then whether exclusion applies)
Employers Mut Cas Co v Helicon Associates, Inc., 313 Mich App 401 (illusory coverage doctrine)
People v Green, 260 Mich App 710 (use of unpublished opinions as persuasive guidance)