 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Auto Club Group Insurance Co. v. Daniel9/13/2002
Approved for publication November 8, 2002.
Defendant Richard Bearinger appeals as of right from an order of summary disposition in favor of plaintiff Auto Club Group Insurance Company (ACGIC). We affirm.
Bearinger filed a personal injury tort claim against respondent Judith Daniel. Though ACGIC provided counsel to defend Daniel, ACGIC later filed a declaratory action to determine whether it was contractually obligated under its policy with Daniel to provide a defense for or indemnify Daniel. The trial court held that the "criminal act" exclusion in Daniel's insurance policy eliminated any duty by ACGIC to defend or indemnify Daniel and, therefore, granted ACGIC's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
I.
While deer hunting in the same deer blind on Daniel's property, Daniel unintentionally shot Bearinger. As a result, Bearinger suffers from a fifteen percent hearing loss in his right ear, tinnitus, and occasional dizzy spells. Both Bearinger and Daniel were drinking beer prior to the shooting incident. When police officers arrived, Daniel's blood alcohol content measured .103 and she later pleaded guilty to a charge of careless discharge of a firearm resulting in injury , MCL 752.861.
This Court reviews a motion for summary disposition de novo. Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). Under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a motion for summary disposition tests the factual support of the claim. Hazle v Ford Motor Co, 464 Mich 456, 461; 628 NW2d 515 (2001). When deciding a motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), this Court must consider " he affidavits, together with the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence then filed in the action or submitted by the parties . . . ." MCR 2.116(G)(5). "This case [also] involves issues concerning the proper interpretation of contracts, which are questions of law that are subject to de novo review by this Court." Archambo v Lawyers Title Ins Corp, 466 Mich 402, 408; 646 NW2d 170 (2002).
II.
Bearinger claims the trial court erred by ruling that the insurance policy's "criminal act" exclusion provision is unambiguous and thus precludes coverage. An insurance company will not be held responsible for a risk that it did not assume. Allstate Ins Co v Fick, 226 Mich App 197, 202; 572 NW2d 265 (1997). An unambiguous policy must be enforced as written. Id. at 202. "A contract is said to be ambiguous when its words may reasonably be understood in different ways." Raska v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 412 Mich 355, 362; 314 NW2d 440 (1982).
Bearinger argues that the policy's "criminal act" exclusion, which denies coverage for "bodily injury or property damage resulting from a criminal act or omission," merely excludes reimbursement for actual bodily injury, but not for other damages such as medical bills, wage loss, mental anguish, fright and shock, denial of social pleasure and enjoyment, etc.
The policy unequivocally states that the term "bodily injury " includes "bodily injury, sickness, disease, including required care and loss of services." Clearly, the damages Bearinger claims for medical bills, mental anguish, loss of social pleasure and the like are included in the phrase "required care and loss of services." Therefore the trial court correctly held that the "criminal act" exclusion is not ambiguous.
The policy's criminal act exclusion provides that ACGIC will not cover bodily injury resulting from a criminal act or omission or an act or omission that is criminal in nature. There is no dispute that this incident meets the definition of "criminal act or omission" because Daniel pleaded guilty to the criminal cha
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.
|
|