Why the Defendant Insurance Company was Awarded Summary Disposition in Bazzi v. State Auto Ins. Co.

The Case

In Bazzi v. State Auto Ins. Co., the plaintiff was driving her BMW when she was rear-ended by a car allegedly owned by the defendants and insured under a policy issued by the defendant insurance company. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff suffered neck, back, and shoulder injuries. The plaintiff asserted claims for personal protection insurance (PIP) and uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits, but the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendant insurance company.

Claim for PIP Benefits

The plaintiff argued that the defendant insurance company was first in priority for payment of PIP benefits under Michigan law, but the court disagreed. The State policy issued on the BMW specified that it was business auto coverage for a private corporation and described the business as “contractors.” The policy listed the number of employees for the business as “1,” which presumably referred to the plaintiff’s husband, who owned and operated a construction company, not the plaintiff herself. Accordingly, the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits under Michigan law since she was neither “the person named in the policy” nor the spouse of the person named in the policy.

Claim for Uninsured/Underinsured Benefits

The plaintiff also claimed that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition on her claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits because the defendant insurance company had allegedly changed the policy to exclude the BMW after the accident occurred. However, the court again disagreed with the plaintiff. The State policy did not exclude the BMW, and the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits.

Conclusion

In summary, the defendant insurance company was awarded summary disposition in Bazzi v. State Auto Ins. Co. because the plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits under Michigan law and was also not entitled to uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. This case serves as a reminder that it is important to carefully review insurance policies to ensure that you have the coverage you need in the event of an accident.

Long-tail Keywords:

Prioritization of Payment of PIP Benefits under Michigan Law
Entitlement to PIP Benefits for Non-Policyholders
Exclusion of Coverage under Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Benefits
Review of Insurance Policies for Adequate Coverage

Originally Post From https://milawyersweekly.com/news/2024/06/26/no-fault-law-pip-uninsured-underinsured-benefits/

“Understanding Michigan’s No-Fault Law and PIP with Uninsured/Underinsured Benefits”