PHYLLIS MCKENZIE V FARM BUREAU INSUR CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PHYLLIS McKENZIE,
UNPUBLISHED
February 18, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 193120
FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY,
HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, and EMPIRE
FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Van Buren Circuit
LC No. 95-03998-NI
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Neff and A. L. Garbrecht,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Phyllis McKenzie appeals by right from a circuit court order granting summary
disposition to defendants Farm Bureau Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), Home Insurance Company
(Home), and Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company (Empire), in plaintiff’s action for personal
protection insurance (PIP) benefits arising out of a single-vehicle accident with her Peterbilt semi-tractor
in Indiana. We affirm.
I
Plaintiff, a Michigan resident, was driving her semi in Huntington, Indiana with a trailer loaded
with freight when she rolled over the truck and trailer. Plaintiff sustained various injuries in the accident,
and filed claims with defendants for the payment of PIP benefits under the Michigan no-fault act, MCL
500.3101 et seq; MSA 24.13101 et seq. When all three companies denied coverage, this case
resulted.
On cross-motions for summary disposition, the trial court determined that defendant Farm
Bureau insured plaintiff’s personal vehicles, but not her semi. The court concluded that plaintiff had no
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
right to recover benefits for which no premium had been paid, and granted Farm Bureau’s motion for
summary disposition.
The court also found that defendant Empire had provided plaintiff “bobtail” insurance; that is,
insurance for the semi when it was operated without a trailer. The trial court stated that because plaintiff
was hauling a trailer loaded with freight when the accident occurred, PIP coverage was properly denied
by the express language of the insurance contract. The court thus granted defendant Empire’s cross
motion for summary disposition.
The court further determined that defendant Home provided federally mandated public liability
insurance for Central States Trucking, for whom plaintiff was working when the accident occurred. The
contract between Central States and defendant Home expressly provided that bodily injury to plaintiff
was not covered. Therefore, the court granted defendant Home’s cross-motion for summary
disposition.
II
Plaintiff first argues that because defendant Empire sold bobtail insurance to plaintiff in Michigan,
this state’s no-fault act applies. Therefore, plaintiff posits, she is entitled to PIP benefits pursuant to
MCL 500.3101(3); MSA 24.13101(3), which provides in relevant part:
Security may be provided under a policy issued by an insurer duly authorized to
transact business in this state which affords insurance for the payment of benefits
described in subsection (1). A policy of insurance represented or sold as providing
security shall be deemed to provide insurance for the payment of the benefits.
[emphasis added.]
According to plaintiff, she is entitled to PIP benefits under this “deemer clause” even though Empire did
not include PIP coverage with the policy it sold her. We disagree.
Plaintiff presented no evidence that the bobtail policy was “represented or sold” as providing
such security. Therefore, her reliance on the deemer clause is misplaced. Moreover, plaintiff’s
argument ignores the statutory requirement that she, as the owner of the semi, was required to maintain
security for payment of PIP benefits. MCL 500.3101(1); MSA 24.13101(1). Because plaintiff did not
fulfill her obligation to obtain PIP coverage, she is barred from receiving PIP benefits. MCL
500.3113(b); MSA 24.13113(b).
III
Plaintiff next argues that public policy requires the imposition of PIP coverage because of the
tactics used by defendant Empire in selling the bobtail policy to plaintiff. We disagree.
Plaintiff executed a power of attorney which established her affiliation with Midwest
Owner/Operators (Midwest), a Missouri organization of truck drivers that purchases non-trucking
-2
policies for their members. In the power of attorney, plaintiff represented that her domicile for purposes
of obtaining insurance was Missouri, and that any insurance coverage requested and entered into would
be deemed to be entered into in the state of Missouri.
Plaintiff argues that, despite her representations to the contrary, defendant Empire knew or
should have known that plaintiff’s truck was registered in Michigan and that she lived in, and ran her
business from, her Michigan home. Plaintiff contends that defendant Empire should not be allowed to
come into Michigan to sell insurance and avoid the requirements of Michigan’s no-fault insurance law by
use of the power of attorney, a legal fiction. We do not share plaintiff’s perspective.
There is no evidence from which we can conclude that Empire came into Michigan to sell
insurance. To the contrary, it appears that plaintiff went to Missouri to obtain insurance from defendant
Empire. Plaintiff affiliated herself with Midwest in an attempt to obtain insurance at rates lower than
those available in Michigan. We therefore reject plaintiff’s public policy argument.
IV
Plaintiff next claims that the trial court erred in not finding ambiguities in the Home and Empire
policies. Again, we disagree.
An insurance contract is ambiguous if it fairly admits of more than one interpretation. Allen v
Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 175 Mich App 206, 209-210; 437 NW2d 263 (1988). Moreover, under the
rule of reasonable expectation, a court will examine whether a policyholder, upon reading the contract,
was lead to a reasonable expectation of coverage. Vanguard Ins Co v Clarke, 438 Mich 463, 472;
475 NW2d 48 (1991). If so, coverage will be afforded. Fire Ins Exchange v Diehl, 450 Mich 678,
687; 545 NW2d 602 (1996).
A
Plaintiff signed a contract with Central States in which she agreed that, while Central States
would insure her against liability for bodily injuries to others, Central States would not provide insurance
for bodily injury to plaintiff herself. There is no evidence that plaintiff knew with which insurance
company Central States contracted with, much less that plaintiff had received a copy of the policy and
read it. Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of PIP coverage from Home based on the contract she
signed with Central States.
Moreover, plaintiff’s claim of ambiguity based on the declarations sheet is without merit. On the
bottom half of the declarations sheet is a chart which reflects all the various types of coverage, covered
vehicles, and policy limits. The line referring to PIP benefits is entirely blank, in stark contrast to other
types of coverage. We find no ambiguity here.
B
-3
Plaintiff’s claim that the Empire bobtail policy is ambiguous must also fail. The policy expressly
states that it is a “non-trucking use” policy, and that fact is stated conspicuously several times
throughout the policy. The term “non-trucking” is consistent with the fact that the Empire policy
provided bobtail coverage, that is, coverage for when plaintiff was driving her semi-tractor without a
trailer. Further, the endorsement/certificate of insurance plainly states that there is no coverage under
the policy when plaintiff is carrying property for business purposes.
The Empire policy states that where a covered vehicle is away from the state in which it i
s
licensed, defendant Empire will provide the minimum amounts and types of other coverage, such as no
fault, required of out-of-state vehicles by the jurisdiction where the vehicle is being used. However, this
accident occurred in Indiana, which is not a no-fault state. Moreover, the declarations sheet expressly
states that PIP benefits are “per endorsement,” and no endorsement for PIP benefits exists.
In sum, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that the insurance policies at issue
are not ambiguous.
V
Plaintiff’s final argument is that the trial court erred when it held that defendant Farm Bureau had
no liability for PIP benefits because it insured plaintiff’s personal vehicles only. We disagree.
Plaintiff claims that under MCL 500.3111; MSA 24.13111, Farm Bureau, remains liable in the
out-of-state accident. This statute provides as follows:
Personal protection insurance benefits are payable for accidental bodily injury
suffered in an accident occurring out of this state, if the accident occurs within the
United States, its territories and possessions or in Canada, and the person whose injury
is the basis of the claim was at the time of the accident a named insured under a
personal protection insurance policy, his spouse, a relative of either domiciled in the
same household or an occupant of a vehicle involved in the accident whose owner
or registrant was insured under a personal protection insurance policy or has
provided security approved by the secretary of state under subsection (4) of section
3101. [emphasis added]
This statute has been interpreted to require that the vehicle involved in the accident be insured
under a PIP policy. See, e.g., Rohlman v Hawkeye-Security Ins, 442 Mich 520, 527 n 6, 533-534 n
13; 502 NW2d 310 (1993); Harwood v Auto Owners Ins Co, 211 Mich App 249, 252; 535 NW2d
207 (1995). It is undisputed that plaintiff had not obtained PIP coverage for the semi. Accordingly, her
reliance on §3111 avails her nothing.
Likewise, plaintiff’s reliance on Parks v DAIIE, 426 Mich 191; 393 NW2d 833 (1986), is
misplaced. In Parks, the Court held that the employee’s personal insurer remains responsible for PIP
benefits when the employee is injured while working in a vehicle that is not required to be registered in
Michigan and is not subject to the Michigan no-fault act. Id. at 207.
-4
In contrast, plaintiff’s semi was both registered in Michigan and subject to the security
provisions of the no-fault act. Nonetheless, plaintiff failed to obtain the requisite PIP coverage for the
semi. Plaintiff is therefore barred from receiving PIP benefits, and her attempt to do so was properly
denied by the circuit court. MCL 500.3113(b); MSA 24.13113(b).
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Allen L. Garbrecht
-5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.