These policies covered two separate vehicles, and a separate premium was paid for each vehicle. Because the umbrella policy expressly excluded UIM coverage, the Meyers purchased an endorsement to provide the UIM coverage. Millers moved the circuit court for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that UIM coverage did not exist under any of its policies issued to Meyer or his parents. Millers argued that its policies do not provide UIM coverage because the liability limit applicable to the vehicle that struck Meyer is not lower than the limits contained in the Millers policies. The circuit court reasoned that the umbrella policy was ambiguous and interpreted it in favor of providing coverage.
Millers disputes the declaratory judgment in two respects.
First, because the primary policy does not provide UIM coverage for Meyer's accident, it argues that the umbrella policy, likewise, provides no UIM coverage. It contends that the umbrella policy's UIM coverage is not ambiguous because a reasonable insured person would assume that the same definition for UIM coverage as provided in the underlying primary policy would be used for the umbrella policy's definition. Second, it disagrees with how the court compared its policy to Michigan Mutual's. The interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law that this court decides independently of the trial court. When construing an insurance policy, our objective, like construing any contract, is to ascertain the intentions of the parties.