Court Opinion

ID: 9657657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:33:33.524052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:47.302531
License: Public Domain

Wahls, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).‘ I concur with the result reached by the majority in Part i. However, I respectfully dissent from the conclusion reached in Part ii.
The question whether plaintiff can recover under the uninsured motorist provision depends on whether he was "occupying” the minivan or the trailer within the meaning of the insurance policy *359issued by Hawkeye. If a provision in an insurance contract is clear and unambiguous, the terms are to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense. Clevenger v Allstate Ins Co, 443 Mich 646, 654; 505 NW2d 553 (1993). A provision is ambiguous when its words may reasonably be understood in different ways. Raska v Farm Bureau Mutual Ins Co of Michigan, 412 Mich 355, 362; 314 NW2d 440 (1982); Michigan Mutual Ins Co v Dowell, 204 Mich App 81, 87; 514 NW2d 185 (1994). If a fair reading of the entire contract of insurance leads one to understand that there is coverage under particular circumstances and another fair reading of it leads one to understand there is no coverage under the same circumstances, the contract is ambiguous and should be construed against the drafter in favor of coverage. Raska, supra.
Because resolution involves construction of the insurance policy rather than a statutory provision, I believe that an analysis under Nickerson v Citizens Mutual Ins Co, 393 Mich 324, 328-331; 224 NW2d 896 (1975), requires affirmance of the award of uninsured motorist benefits. In Nickerson, the policy defined the term "occupying” as "in or upon or entering into or alighting from.” In construing the term against the insurer, the Supreme Court rejected the restrictive interpretation that physical contact was mandatory. Instead, the Court held that the plaintiff was "occupying” the vehicle at the time of the accident because he had been immediately occupying the vehicle and suffered an injury arising out of the use or repair of the vehicle. Id. at 326, 330-331.
The subsequent case from the Supreme Court, Royal Globe Ins Cos v Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co, 419 Mich 565; 357 NW2d 652 (1984), solely involved the statutory interpretation of the term *360"occupant” as used in the no-fault act. The Court in Royal Globe noted other reasons beside public policy for distinguishing Nickerson: (1) that Nickerson construed the terms of a private insurance contract rather than the language of a statute, therefore involving different rules of construction; and (2) the term "occupying” was expressly defined in the policy as meaning "in or upon or entering into or alighting from,” whereas the term "occupant” was not defined by statute. Royal Globe, supra at 573-574. I believe that until the Supreme Court has expressly overruled Nickerson in a context involving the similar facts, the Supreme Court’s analysis remains binding.1
Furthermore, numerous cases in other jurisdictions have considered the meaning of the words "on” or "upon” within the context of similar uninsured motorist provisions and have rejected a restrictive interpretation that physical contact is required. Generally, the courts have construed the term "on” or "upon” to include a person who leaves a vehicle before the termination of the journey and is injured within a small geographic perimeter of the vehicle while servicing the vehicle or engaging in other vehicle-oriented conduct. Thus, an injured person may recover under an uninsured motorist provision if the person can establish a relationship with the insured car at the time of the accident, despite the lack of physical contact with the insured vehicle at the time._
*361In Tata v Nichols, 848 SW2d 649 (Tenn, 1993), a vehicle insured by Allstate Insurance Company became disabled while traveling on a highway and was parked on the shoulder. The plaintiff, who was a passenger in a vehicle insured by Maryland Casualty Company, stopped to assist. As the plaintiff leaned under the open hood of the disabled vehicle while attaching a set of battery cables, an uninsured motorist collided with the rear of the disabled vehicle and crushed the plaintiff between the two vehicles. The plaintiff claimed coverage under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policies covering the vehicles. Each policy provided uninsured motorist coverage for "anyone else occupying a covered auto.” The Maryland policy defined "occupying” as "in, upon, getting in, on, out or off” the covered vehicle. The Allstate policy defined "occupying” as "in or upon or entering into or alighting from” a covered vehicle.
The Tennessee Supreme Court noted that a majority of jurisdictions looked at factors such as the proximity between the claimant and the insured car in time, distance, and geography, as well as the intent of the claimant, in interpreting the term "occupying” as defined in insurance policies. Id. at 651. After reviewing decisions from other states and dictionary definitions, the Tennessee Supreme Court concluded that the term "upon” had no precise meaning except in the context of the particular facts in each case. Id. at 651-653. The court proceeded to reverse the trial court’s dismissal:
When tested according to these authorities, the facts in this case show that the plaintiff’s relationship with each vehicle was within the meaning of "upon.” The plaintiff had not severed his relationship with the Glidewell Jeep which was being used *362to "jump start” the Horton vehicle. He was in very-close geographic and spatial proximity to both vehicles, indeed under the hood of the Horton car, and he was directly engaged in activities involving both vehicles. These factual circumstances constitute the location or position described by "upon,” and the plaintiffs relationship with each vehicle is within the policy definition of "occupying.” [Id. at 653.]
See also State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co v Cookinham, 135 NH 247; 604 A2d 563 (1992); Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Ins Co v Gray, 831 SW2d 164 (Ky, 1992) Kreuser v Heritage Mutual Ins Co, 158 Wis 2d 166; 461 NW2d 806 (1990); Mondelli v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 102 NJ 167; 506 A2d 728 (1986); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co v Holmes, 175 Ga App 655; 333 SE2d 917 (1985); Utica Mutual Ins Co v Contrisciane, 504 Pa 328; 473 A2d 1005 (1984); Sayers v Safeco Ins Co, 192 Mont 336; 628 P2d 659 (1981); Manning v Summit Home Ins Co, 128 Ariz 79; 623 P2d 1235 (1980).
Under the majority’s analysis, whether an injured person is covered under an insurance policy rests upon the fortuitous event that the person steps away from an automobile momentarily and is hit by an uninsured motorist. Of course, in most situations, the injured person is covered by the assigned claims plan of the no-fault act, MCL 500.3172(1); MSA 24.13172(1). Given the insurance company’s failure to require physical contact in defining "occupying,” I am not willing to pass such costs along.
Rather than adopting a bright-line test that requires physical contact, I would hold that the determination whether the definition of "occupying” contained in the insurance policy issued by Hawkeye is satisfied should be decided case by *363case. In this case, plaintiff had gotten out of the van because of a vehicle-oriented incident during their travel. Remaining in close proximity to the van, he engaged in activities involving both the van and the trailer by attempting to turn the trailer in order to reattach it to the van. Plaintiff was injured within two minutes of departing from the van. Had he been able to reattach the trailer, plaintiff and his party would have continued their travel to this state. Because plaintiff remained in close proximity and was attempting to alleviate a vehicle-oriented incident in order to continue their travel, I would hold that plaintiff was occupying the van and the trailer at the time of the accident. Therefore, plaintiff was a covered person under the policy for purposes of uninsured motorist benefits. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s order pertaining to the uninsured motorist provision.

 Previous decisions from this Court involving interpretation of the term "occupant” under a statutory provision of the no-fault act likewise utilized the statutory rules of construction rather than the rules of construction for a private insurance contract. Lankford v Citizens Ins Co of America, 171 Mich App 413; 431 NW2d 59 (1988); Hackley v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 147 Mich App 115; 383 NW2d 108 (1985); Auto-Owners Ins Co v Turner, 135 Mich App 522; 354 NW2d 813 (1984). Unlike the majority, I do not find these decisions an appropriate source for interpreting the term "occupying” as defined under the insurance contract.