Categories: Michigan Supreme Court Opinions

CROUCHMAN v. MOTOR CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY, 127871 (Mich. 12-28-2005)

707 N.W.2d 595

ROBERT THOMAS CROUCHMAN and SUGAR M. CROUCHMAN, Plaintiffs, v. MOTOR CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY and CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, KEVIN JAMES WIECZOREK, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellee, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant/Appellant.

No. 127871.Supreme Court of Michigan.
December 28, 2005.

SC: 127871, COA: 248419, Wayne CC: 01-112063-NI.

On December 1, 2005, the Court heard oral arguments on third-party defendant’s application for leave to appeal the October 28, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the summary disposition orders of the Wayne Circuit Court, and REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for entry of an order granting third-party defendant’s motion for summary disposition. The unambiguous language of § IV.1.a(1) of the insurance policy does not extend liability coverage to the vehicle the third-party plaintiff was operating. See Farm Bureau Mutual Ins Co of Michigan v. Nikkel, 460 Mich 558 (1999). Coverage cannot be based on the language in § IV.1.c(2) of the policy, because the language of that provision excludes coverage and does not create coverage. See Auto-Owners Ins Co v. Harrington, 455 Mich 377, 381-2
(1997).

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., concur in the result only

jdjungle