EDWARD F HUIZINGA V RUSSELL M OLIVIER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
EDWARD F. HUIZINGA and NANCY J.
HUIZINGA,
UNPUBLISHED
November 1, 2002
Plaintiffs-Appellees/CrossAppellants,
v
RUSSELL M. OLIVIER and OLIVIER-VANDYK
INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.,
No. 230981
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 96-012158-CK
Defendant-Appellees,
and
CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellant/CrossAppellee.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Hood and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Citizens Insurance Company of America (Citizens), appeals as of right from
the trial court’s order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition and denying defendant
Citizens’ motion for summary disposition. On cross-appeal, plaintiffs challenge the calculation
of interest and the propriety of summary disposition in favor of defendants Russell M. Olivier
(Olivier) and Olivier-VanDyk Insurance Agency, Inc. (Olivier-VanDyk).1 We affirm in part and
reverse in part.
Defendant Citizens first alleges that the trial court erroneously concluded that an
ambiguity in the contract resulted in unlimited replacement coverage for personal property. We
agree. Construction and interpretation of a contract presents a question of law that an appellate
1
As an initial matter, we note that plaintiffs’ challenge to this Court’s jurisdiction is without
merit. Children’s Hospital of Michigan v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 450 Mich 670, 675, 677; 545
NW2d 592 (1996).
-1-
court reviews de novo. Bandit Industries, Inc v Hobbs Int’l, Inc (After Remand), 463 Mich 504,
511; 620 NW2d 531 (2001). Contractual terms are interpreted in accordance with their
commonly used meaning, and the omission of a definition of a term does not create an
ambiguity. Vanguard Ins Co v Racine, 224 Mich App 229, 232; 568 NW2d 156 (1997).
Whether the terms of a contract are ambiguous presents a question for the court. Id. at 233. A
contract may be inartfully worded or clumsily arranged, but if it fairly admits of one
interpretation, it is not ambiguous. Meagher v Wayne State University, 222 Mich App 700, 722;
565 NW2d 401 (1997). An insurance contract is read as a whole, with meaning given to all
terms. Auto-Owners Ins Co v Churchman, 440 Mich 560, 566; 489 NW2d 431 (1992). Clear
and specific exclusions must be given effect. Id. at 567.
While plaintiff purchased additional coverage through the homeowners’ deluxe
endorsement, this coverage extended the limitations on liability with respect to the dwelling
residence or coverage A. There was no extension of limitless coverage through ambiguity or
express language with respect to personal property or coverage C. Based on the plain language
of the insurance policy, defendant Citizens was entitled to summary disposition. Accordingly,
the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition and denying defendant
Citizens’ motion for summary disposition. Based on this holding, plaintiffs’ challenge to the
calculation of interest is moot. Lastly, we need not address plaintiffs’ challenge to the propriety
of summary disposition in favor of defendants Olivier and Olivier-VanDyk. A statement of
position without citation to authority is insufficient to raise an issue to the appellate court.
Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243; 577 NW2d 100 (1998). Nonetheless, the excerpts of the
deposition testimony submitted by plaintiffs failed to clarify whether limitless personal property
coverage was expressly requested.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-2-
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.
