Court Opinion

ID: 9840094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 05:08:01.957346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:26.812996
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
              revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                      STATE OF MICHIGAN

                         COURT OF APPEALS

AMEEN AL-GAHMI,                                                UNPUBLISHED
                                                               September 14, 2023
           Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                              No. 361932
                                                               Wayne Circuit Court
SADIK AL-JAHMI, MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE                            LC No. 21-008780-NI
INSURANCE PLACEMENT FACILITY, and
GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY
also known as GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,

           Defendants,

and

AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,

           Defendant-Appellant.

AMEEN AL-GAHMI,

           Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                              No. 361934
                                                               Wayne Circuit Court
SADIK AL-JAHMI, MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE                            LC No. 21-008780-NI
INSURANCE PLACEMENT FACILITY, and
AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,

           Defendants,

and

                                           -1-
GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY
also known as GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,

               Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and JANSEN and RICK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        Ameen Al-Gahmi was injured in an out-of-state trucking accident while a passenger in a
truck he owned but had leased to another company. He filed suit against the driver, Sadik Al-
Jahmi, as well as against the insurance companies that provided the truck’s bobtail policy and the
lessee’s commercial policy. Coverage was not available under Michigan’s no-fault act or the
insurance policies and the circuit court erred in denying the insurers’ motions for summary
disposition. We reverse and remand for entry of orders dismissing the claims against the insurers.

                                       I. BACKGROUND

        Plaintiff Ameen1 is the registered agent of Al Freed Transportation, LLC. Al Freed owns
a Volvo truck. Ameen purchased a “Non-trucking Liability and Physical Damage,” or “bobtail,”
policy for the Volvo through Great American Assurance Company. Ameen leased the Volvo truck
to Transport Systems, LLC, and drove it as an independent contractor for that company. Transport
Systems had a general commercial auto policy through Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company,
but did not list this Volvo truck or Ameen as covered under the policy.

       In February 2021, Ameen was using the Volvo truck to haul freight from California to
Kentucky on Transport Systems’ behalf. When the accident occurred, the truck was in Arkansas
and Sadik was driving. Ameen brought negligence and tort claims against Sadik. He also filed
suit against Amerisure and Great American, seeking personal protection insurance (PIP) and
uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits.2

        Both insurers sought summary disposition. Amerisure contended that neither the Volvo
nor Ameen was listed on Transport Systems’ commercial auto policy. Further, Ameen was not a
spouse or resident relative of a named insured. Therefore, MCL 500.3111 precluded recovery of
PIP benefits arising from the out-of-state accident. Great American cited a business-use exclusion
in the bobtail policy precluding Ameen from recovering PIP or UM/UIM benefits. The circuit
court denied the motions without a hearing and without explanation.

1
 Given the similarity of the parties’ last names, we use their first names in this opinion to avoid
any confusion.
2
  Ameen also raised claims against the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility, but
stipulated to their dismissal from the action.

                                                -2-
       We granted Amerisure’s and Great American’s interlocutory applications for leave to
appeal and consolidated the actions. Al-Gahmi v Al-Jahmi, unpublished order of the Court of
Appeals, entered November 7, 2022 (Docket Nos. 361932 and 361934).

                                         II. ANALYSIS

       Amerisure argues that the circuit court erred by denying its motion for summary disposition
because Ameen was barred from receiving PIP benefits under MCL 500.3111. Great American
contends the circuit court erred by denying its motion because Ameen was barred from receiving
PIP or UM/UIM benefits under its policy’s business-use exclusion.

        The circuit court did not indicate under which subrule it denied summary disposition. As
the parties had presented documentary evidence beyond the pleadings, we consider the motions as
denied under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Cuddington v United Health Servs, Inc, 298 Mich App 264,
270; 826 NW2d 519 (2012).

                We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de
       novo. . . . A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support of a
       plaintiff’s claim. Summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if
       there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled
       to judgment as a matter of law. In reviewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10),
       this Court considers the pleadings, admissions, affidavits, and other relevant
       documentary evidence of record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party
       to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact exists to warrant a trial. A
       genuine issue of material fact exists when the record, giving the benefit of
       reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable
       minds might differ. [Zaher v Miotke, 300 Mich App 132, 139-140; 832 NW2d 266
       (2013) (quotation marks and citations omitted).]

We also review de novo underlying issues of statutory and contract interpretation. Spectrum
Health Hosps v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich, 492 Mich 503, 515; 821 NW2d 117 (2012);
Lueck v Lueck, 328 Mich App 399, 404; 937 NW2d 729 (2019).

                                    A. DOCKET NO. 361932

       Transport Systems’ Amerisure policy did not list the Volvo truck as a covered auto or
Ameen as a named insured. Ameen contended that he was entitled to coverage anyway as the
policy included numerous PIP endorsements which prevailed over any conflicting policy
provisions, because Transport Systems constructively owned the Volvo, and because the policy
covered leased vehicles. Accordingly, Ameen insisted that Amerisure was the top priority insurer
under MCL 500.3114.

       MCL 500.3111 governs the provision of PIP benefits for accidents that occur out of state:

       [PIP] benefits are payable for accidental bodily injury suffered in an accident
       occurring out of this state, if the accident occurs within the United States, its
       territories and possessions, or Canada, and the person whose injury is the basis of
       the claim was at the time of the accident a named insured under a [PIP] policy, the

                                                -3-
       spouse of a named insured, a relative of either domiciled in the same household, or
       an occupant of a vehicle involved in the accident, if the occupant was a resident of
       this state or if the owner or registrant of the vehicle was insured under a [PIP] policy
       or provided security approved by the secretary of state under [MCL 500.3101(5).]

The general rule “that statutory coverage under the no-fault act[, MCL 500.3101 et seq.,] does not
depend on whether a person is a ‘named insured’ in a no-fault policy[,]” Dye by Siporin &
Associates, Inc v Esurance Property & Casualty Ins Co, 504 Mich 167, 190 n 60; 934 NW2d 674
(2019), does not apply when an accident occurs outside of Michigan under MCL 500.3111.
“Under those circumstances, coverage is predicated on whether ‘the person whose injury is the
basis of the claim was at the time of the accident a named insured under a [PIP] policy . . . .’ ”
Dye, 504 Mich 167 n 60, quoting MCL 500.3111. Therefore, MCL 500.3111 requires “the vehicle
involved in the accident to be insured under a PIP policy before an insurer may become obligated
to honor a claim for PIP benefits.” Harwood v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 211 Mich App 249, 252; 535
NW2d 207 (1995).

       The subject accident occurred in Arkansas, necessarily implicating MCL 500.3111. It is
undisputed that Ameen was not a named insured or a spouse or resident relative of a named insured
on Amerisure’s policy, nor was the Volvo listed in the policy. As such, Ameen was ineligible for
PIP benefits under Amerisure’s policy. Whether Transport Systems constructively owned the
Volvo is irrelevant as it was not identified as a covered vehicle.

                                     B. DOCKET NO. 361934

        Coverage also was not available under the Great American bobtail policy. Our goal in
interpreting insurance policies is to determine the intent of the parties based on the plain and
unambiguous language of the policy. Kendzierski v Macomb County, 503 Mich 296, 311; 931
NW2d 604 (2019).

        Great American’s policy plainly and unambiguously precluded coverage for “[b]odily
injury or property damage arising out of any accident which occurs while the covered auto is being
used in the business of any lessee or . . . is being used to transport cargo of any type.” (Emphasis
added.) It is undisputed that Ameen was using the Volvo in the business of a lessee and to transport
cargo at the time of the accident. Ameen has never argued in avoidance of this exclusion.

         Instead, Ameen contends that this business-use exclusion is unenforceable because it is
contrary to the purpose of the no-fault act. However, MCL 500.2118(2)(f), “specifically permits
insurers to limit insurance coverage on the basis of business use.” Husted v Dobbs, 459 Mich 500,
506; 591 NW2d 642 (1999). Ameen suggests that Great American could not issue a bobtail policy
that left him without PIP coverage. But this Court has held that “the practice of selling only bobtail
insurance [is] not against the law.” Johnson v USA Underwriters, 328 Mich App 223, 245; 936
NW2d 834 (2019). “MCL 500.3101(1) puts the onus on the insured to obtain the coverages
necessary to meet the requirements of the no-fault act.” Johnson, 328 Mich at 246. Insurers do
not have a similar duty to ensure that their insureds have secured all required insurance. “To do
so would require insurers to verify that every insured who has purchased policies from more than
one carrier has procured all the insurance needed to satisfy the no-fault act.” Id. Accordingly, it
was Ameen’s responsibility, not Great American’s, to ensure that he was properly covered for all

                                                 -4-
situations, including those not covered by Great American’s bobtail policy. Ameen failed to do
so, and cannot now contend that Great American’s policy exclusion is against public policy or the
purpose of the no-fault act.

        Ameen also sought UM/UIM coverage from Great American. Ameen did not respond to
Great American’s motion for summary disposition of this claim and has not addressed it on appeal.
In any event, the circuit court also erred in denying Great American’s summary disposition motion
on this ground. This type of coverage is completely optional and not governed by the no-fault act.
Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 465; 703 NW2d 23 (2005). We are guided by the
contract language alone. Id. at 465-466.

        Great American’s policy applies the business-use exclusion to UM/UIM benefits, stating:
“Each and every exclusion which appears in Part II, Liability Coverage for Non-Trucking Use
shall apply to any Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage . . . .” Again, it is undisputed that
Ameen was using the Volvo in the business of a lessee and to haul cargo. Therefore, he was not
entitled to UM/UIM coverage.

        We reverse the circuit court’s orders denying Amerisure’s and Great American’s motions
for summary disposition, and remand for entry of orders dismissing the claims against them. We
do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                            /s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
                                                            /s/ Michelle M. Rick

                                               -5-