In a Hit and Run, Direct Physical Contact May Not be Necessary for Coverage

 

March 20, 2017

 

The Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed the prior court's decision to grant the defendant, Metropolitan Group Prop. and Cas. (Metropolitan), motion for summary disposition after Metropolitan refused to provide coverage under an uninsured motorists claim. The case is Ronald Tucker v. John Doe and Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance, (Mich Ct. App. Mar 14, 2017).

 

This case involves a hit-and-run driver who struck a van, who in turn struck the vehicle of the insured. The plaintiff had just parked his vehicle when the hit-and-run vehicle (travelling at a speed over 70 mph) struck another van in an intersection, sending the second van careening into the plaintiff's vehicle. The Plaintiff was still in the vehicle at the time of the accident. When the hit-and-run occurred, the plaintiff had no-fault insurance through Metropolitan, including uninsured motorists insurance. The policy provided “uninsured motor vehicle” coverage defined as “a hit and run motor vehicle which causes bodily injury to a person covered under this section as the result of striking that person or a motor vehicle which that person is occupying at the time of the accident.

 

Based on the provision mentioned above, the plaintiff sought insured motorist benefits under the policy, but was denied by the insurer who concluded that the plaintiff could not satisfy the “striking” requirement of the policy, since the vehicle that struck the plaintiff's car was not the hit-and-run vehicle. Plaintiff maintains that the way the insurance policy is written does not require direct physical contact between the hit-and-run vehicle and the plaintiffs vehicle. The plaintiff also contends that the hit-and-run vehicle “struck” the plaintiffs car through the use of an intermediary vehicle.

 

Generally, the physical contact that is required to trigger coverage depends on the wording of a policy. Some policies require “direct contact” or “direct physical contact.” The Court has determined over time that a “physical contact” requirement is satisfied by direct or indirect contact, commonly allowing coverage for incidents when a vehicle is struck by an intervening vehicle that was initially struck by a hit and run vehicle, and for when an insured vehicle is struck by an object propelled by another vehicle that does not stop. Generally in the absence of a term that modifies the “striking” requirement, direct or indirect contact is covered. Since ambiguous terms are interpreted in the light most favorable to the insured, the contact by the intervening vehicle is considered to be “direct contact” in this case.

 

Editor's Note: Since the insurer is the party that writes their insurance policies, and has the opportunity to choose their words deliberately, Courts generally decide ambiguous terms in favor of the insured. In this case, many other insurers included different phrasing around the word “contact” in order to preclude coverage for risks that could not be assessed. Since Metropolitan had the opportunity to specifically and deliberately write their policy in order to cover or not cover perils as they saw fit, the court properly decided in favor of the insured.