NICHOLE SHELDON V ASHLEY ZIMMERMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
NICHOLE SHELDON,
UNPUBLISHED
July 22, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 246053
Calhoun Circuit Court
LC No. 01-0018737-NO
ASHLEY ZIMMERMAN, JACKIE
ZIMMERMAN and DALE ZIMMERMAN
Defendants,
and
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO,
Garnishee Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Hoekstra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Garnishee/defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) appeals as of
right from the order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition. We reverse.
Plaintiff suffered an injury while riding in a golf cart driven by defendant Ashley
Zimmerman and owned by Ashley’s parents, defendants Jackie and Dale Zimmerman. The
accident occurred on a public roadway a short distance from the Zimmermans’ property.
Plaintiff obtained a judgment against the Zimmermans pursuant to acceptance of a case
evaluation award. Plaintiff added State Farm as a garnishee defendant and sought payment from
State Farm under the Zimmermans’ homeowner’s insurance policy. State Farm moved for
summary disposition on the ground that plaintiff’s injuries were not covered under the policy.
The trial court disagreed and granted summary disposition in favor of plaintiff, finding that the
public roadway on which the accident occurred was constituted a “premises” as that term is
defined in the policy.
We review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant or deny summary disposition.
Schmalfeldt v North Pointe Ins Co, 469 Mich 422, 426; 670 NW2d 651 (2003). Similarly, the
proper interpretation of a contract constitutes a question of law subject to de novo review. Id.
-1-
Insurance companies may define or limit the scope of their coverage under an insurance
contract as long as its terms lead "to only one reasonable interpretation" and it does not
contravene public policy. Farmers Ins Exchange v Kurzman, 257 Mich App 412, 418; 668
NW2d 199 (2003). Courts construe the terms of insurance policies in accord with the wellsettled principles of contract construction. Id. at 417. An ambiguous provision in an insurance
contract must be construed against the drafting insurer and in favor of the insured. However, if
the provision is clear and unambiguous, the terms are to be taken and understood in their plain,
ordinary, and popular sense. Michigan Mutual Ins Co v Dowell, 204 Mich App 81, 87; 514
NW2d 185 (1994).
Section II of the homeowner's policy provides coverage when an insured incurs personal
liability for bodily injury or property damage. However, the portion of section II entitled
“exclusions” states that the coverage for personal liability and medical expenses does not extend
to bodily injury arising out of the use a motor vehicle owned or operated by any insured. The
definitions section of the policy states that, for purposes of section II, a motor vehicle includes "a
motorized golf cart" when it is "off an insured location." The policy’s definition of “insured
location” as relevant to this appeal includes the following:
(a) the resident premises;
(b) the part of any other premises, other structures and grounds used by you as a
residence. This includes premises, structures and grounds you acquire while this
policy is in effect for your use as a residence;
(c) any premises used by you in connection with the premises in [(a) or (b)].
In granting plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition, the trial court found that the road
where plaintiff’s accident occurred constituted premises used by the Zimmermans in connection
with their resident premises and that the exclusion from liability for incidents arising from the
operation of a motor vehicle did not apply. On appeal, State Farm contends that the trial court
erred in determining that the public road constituted a “premises.” We agree.
The policy defines “residence premises” as follows:
(a) the one, two, three or four-family dwelling, other structures and grounds; or
(b) that part of any other building;
where you reside and which is shown in the Declarations.
"Residence premises" refers to a type of physical structure. The policy clearly provides coverage
for the residence premises and premises that are used in connection with it. The term “premises”
is not defined in the policy. When a policy fails to define a particular term, word and phrases
must be read in context to determine the meaning they convey to the ordinary reader. Henderson
v State Farm Fire & Casualty Co, 460 Mich 348, 354; 596 NW2d 190 (1999). Additionally,
courts may “refer to dictionary definitions when appropriate when ascertaining the precise
meaning of a particular term.” Morinelli v Provident Life & Accident Ins Co, 242 Mich App
255, 262; 617 NW2d 777 (2000).
-2-
The meaning of “premises” derived from the context of its use within the insurance
contract comports with the term’s plain and ordinary meaning as derived from its common
dictionary definition. The American Heritage Dictionary (2nd College ed, 1985), defines
premises as “(a) Land and the buildings upon it. (b) A building or part of a building.” Similarly,
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2nd ed, 1997), defines it as “(a) a tract of land
including its buildings. (b) a building or part of a building together with its grounds and other
appurtenances.” Under the common meaning of the term “premises,” a public road does not fall
within the definition of “premises” and is not an “insured location” under the homeowner’s
policy. Here, it is undisputed that the golf cart was being operated on a public road when the
accident occurred. The clear language of the exclusionary clause disavows coverage where an
accident occurred away from the homeowner's premises and resulted from the use or operation of
a motorized golf cart.
Reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of
State Farm. Jurisdiction is not retained.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-3-
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.
