 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Etkin Management9/18/2003
UNPUBLISHED
Defendant Federal Insurance appeals as of right from judgments entered in plaintiffs' favor following the grant of plaintiffs' motions for summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Nadine Currier tripped and fell over a pavement defect located outside a Petsmart store at a shopping center in Northville. The center was owned by plaintiff Northville Village and managed by plaintiff Etkin. Currier filed a negligence action against Northville Village and Etkin, among others. Etkin had insurance coverage under a policy issued by Federal Insurance. Etkin tendered its defense to Federal Insurance, which denied the claim, contending that the shopping center was not a location to which the policy applied. Etkin then filed a declaratory judgment/breach of contract action. Northville Village intervened, claiming it was an insured under the policy. When Federal Insurance did not assume its defense, it turned to Amerisure, with whom it was also insured. Amerisure sought to recoup its costs under a theory of equitable subrogation.
All parties moved for summary disposition. The court granted plaintiffs' motions and denied defendant's, finding that the policy did not clearly and unambiguously exclude coverage for the incident. The trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Kefgen v Davidson, 241 Mich App 611, 616; 617 NW2d 351 (2000). The construction and interpretation of an insurance policy and whether the policy language is ambiguous are questions of law that are also reviewed de novo on appeal. Henderson v State Farm Fire & Cas Co, 460 Mich 348, 353; 596 NW2d 190 (1999).
An insurance policy is much the same as any other contract. It is an agreement between the parties in which a court will determine what the agreement was and effectuate the intent of the parties. Auto-Owners Ins Co v Churchman, 440 Mich 560, 566; 489 NW2d 431 (1992). When determining what the parties' agreement is, the court should read the contract as a whole and give meaning to all the terms contained within the policy. Id . Policy language is ambiguous when, after reading the entire document, its language can be reasonably understood in different ways. Royce v Citizens Ins Co, 219 Mich App 537, 542; 557 NW2d 144 (1996). "However, if a contract, even an inartfully worded or clumsily arranged contract, fairly admits of but one interpretation, it may not be said to be ambiguous or fatally unclear." Michigan Twp Participating Plan v Pavolich, 232 Mich App 378, 382; 591 NW2d 325 (1998). Likewise, a policy is not rendered ambiguous by the fact that a relevant term is not defined. Henderson, supra at 354. If there is a conflict between the terms of the form policy and an endorsement, it is to be resolved in favor of the terms of the endorsement. McKusick v Travelers Indemnity Co, 246 Mich App 329, 340; 632 NW2d 525 (2001).
Under the policy, defendant agreed as follows:
Subject to the applicable Limits of Insurance, we will pay damages the insured becomes legally obligated to pay by reason of liability imposed by law or assumed under an insured contract for:
bodily injury or property damage to which this insurance applies caused by an occurrence, or
advertising injury or personal injury to which this insurance applies caused by an offense.
This insurance applies to:
bodily injury or property damage which occurs during the policy period, and
advertising injury or personal injury caused by an offense committed during the policy period.
There appears to be no dispute that Currier sought
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|