 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Etkin Management9/18/2003
damages for bodily injury caused by an occurrence. The only issue is whether the insurance applied to this incident.
The policy included a section entitled "Coverage Territory." It provided, "This insurance applies anywhere. However, the insured's responsibility to pay damages must be determined in a suit on the merits, in the United States of America, its territories or possessions, Canada or Puerto Rico, or in a settlement we agree to." The policy also included an endorsement applicable to the general liability coverage. The endorsement, entitled "GL Location Extension," provided that the general liability insurance under the policy "is extended to cover" seven named locations. The named locations do not include the Northville shopping center where Currier was injured.
Under the policy, defendant agreed to provide general liability coverage to Etkin, a property management company located in Southfield. That insurance covered personal injury claims "to which this insurance applies" and the only limitation regarding applicability is that the personal injury claim occur during the policy period. The policy was in effect from December 4, 1998, to December 4, 1999, and Currier was injured in April 1999. The policy states that the insurance "applies anywhere." Coverage is not restricted to occurrences at any particular location. For example, it did not indicate that the insurance applies to the insured's principal place of business, the insured's property located at a particular address, or the insured's business operations conducted at one or more specified locations. Defendant apparently intended to so limit the policy via the endorsement, but failed to express that intention in clear and unambiguous language, such as by stating that coverage was limited to the locations named in the endorsement. Clear and unambiguous language may not be rewritten under the guise of interpretation. Henderson, supra at 354. The endorsement simply stated that the policy was "extended to cover" the named locations even though the policy itself already provided coverage "anywhere." The endorsement is thus redundant, the named locations being encompassed within the realm of anywhere, but is not contrary to the form policy. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not err in ruling that the policy provided coverage for the underlying incident. Summary disposition in favor of plaintiffs was properly granted.
Affirmed.
Michael R. Smolenski
William B. Murphy
Kurtis T. Wilder
|