Westfield Insurance v. Ken's Service
815 N.W.2d 786
Mich. Ct. App.2012Background
- In a declaratory judgment action, Westfield Insurance denied underinsured motorist coverage to Robbins and the circuit court granted summary disposition for Westfield.
- Ken’s Service and Mark Robbins appeal as a matter of right, challenging the contract interpretation that denied Robbins UM/UIM coverage.
- The Westfield policy defines “occupying” as “in, upon, getting in, on, out or off” a covered auto, and the endorsement limits coverage to an insured who is occupying the vehicle.
- Robbins was injured while leaning on the tow truck for balance while operating towing controls on the driver’s side of the truck, and not inside the vehicle at the time of the impact.
- The trial court held Robbins was not occupying the vehicle; the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s interpretation of the contract.
- Dissent argues Robbins was on or upon the vehicle under the policy and should be covered, but the majority affirms the denial of coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robbins was “occupying” the tow truck under the policy. | Robbins was on/upon the truck as he leaned for balance and support. | Robbins was not inside, on, or immediately part of the vehicle at impact; not occupying. | Robbins was not occupying the vehicle; no coverage. |
| Whether the contract language is ambiguous and governs the interpretation of “occupying.” | Language is clear; broad definition should include leaning on the vehicle. | Literal no-fault-like interpretation requires inside/on/near the vehicle; not occupying. | Contract language clear; no ambiguity; Robbins not covered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rednour v Hastings Mut Ins Co, 468 Mich 241 (2003) (interprets ‘occupying’ under policy; physical contact alone not sufficient)
- Rohlman v Hawkeye-Security Ins Co, 442 Mich 520 (1993) (initial interpretation of ‘occupant’ under no-fault; need for inside/physical contact)
- Rohlman v Hawkeye-Security Ins Co (On Remand), 207 Mich App 334 (1994) (remand; physical contact required but not solely sufficient to be ‘upon’)
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) (directs standard for summary disposition and contract interpretation)
- Archambo v Lawyers Title Ins Corp, 466 Mich 402 (2002) (contract interpretation framework; public policy considerations)
- Wilkie v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 469 Mich 41 (2003) (contract interpretation and policy language analysis)