Court Opinion

ID: 9739941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:23:51.093903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:14.857417
License: Public Domain

Kelly, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent and would reverse.
*90Although this is a case of first impression in Michigan, several courts have ruled that an individual cannot recover as a “family member,” including “a ward” under a policy of insurance issued to a corporation. See anno: Who is “member” or “resident” of same “family” or “household” within no-fault or uninsured motorist provisions of motor vehicle insurance policy, 66 ALR5th 269, 369-371. I would follow that line of authority and hold that the case of Hartman v Ins Co of North America, 106 Mich App 731; 308 NW2d 625 (1981) does not control. The Hartman case is distinguishable in that the insureds there were individuals who ran a group living facility. Here the insured is a nonprofit corporation. A corporation cannot have a family member, and I think it is a strained interpretation to conclude that it can have a ward. The injured person here, Mr. Flynn, was under the care of the licensee of the foster care facility, one Denise Butts, and although the contract for care was between the state and Paragon, any “family relations” was between the caregiver, Denise Butts, and Mr. Flynn. Although the corporation provides services, I do not believe that can be interpreted as creating “a family relationship.” I would reverse.