ALLSTATE INSUR CO V ARCHANGEL ZITO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 12, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 248027
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 2001-004698-NZ
ARCHANGEL ZITO,
Defendant,
and
LAWRENCE WAGNER, Guardian and
Conservator for the Estate of RICHARD
WAGNER, a Legally Incapacitated Person,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Saad and O’Connell, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Lawrence Wagner, Guardian and Conservator of the Estate of Richard
Wagner, a legally incapacitated person, appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting
plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without
oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Richard Wagner sustained disabling injuries when he was struck by a snowmobile owned
and operated by defendant Archangel Zito. Zito was insured under a homeowner’s policy issued
by Allstate. The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the ownership or use
of a motor vehicle, but provided that the exclusion did not apply to a motor vehicle designed for
off-road recreational use, unless the vehicle was owned by the insured and was being used away
from the insured’s premises. The policy did not expressly define the term “motor vehicle.”
Allstate filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and moved for summary disposition
pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that it was not liable for payment of benefits to Wagner
-1-
because a snowmobile qualified as a “motor vehicle” and because the accident occurred on
premises that Zito did not own. The trial court granted the motion.1
Defendant argues that the policy covers any accident that does not involve a “motor
vehicle,” and a snowmobile is not a motor vehicle. We disagree. We review de novo a trial
court’s decision to grant summary disposition. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597
NW2d 817 (1999). An insurance contract should be read as a whole and meaning should be
given to all its terms. Auto-Owners Ins Co v Churchman, 440 Mich 560, 566; 489 NW2d 431
(1992). Allstate’s policy provides that the motor vehicle exclusion does not apply to a motor
vehicle designed for off-road recreational purposes, unless the vehicle “is owned by an insured
person and is being used away from an insured premises.” Therefore, the policy recognizes that
some “motor vehicles” are “designed for off-road recreational purposes.” This contradicts
defendant’s argument that snowmobiles are not “motor vehicles” for the sole reason that they are
primarily used off the public roadway. Plaintiff’s approach would render nugatory the policy
language that covers accidents involving off-road vehicles on the insured’s land, because the
policy would necessarily cover any accident involving an off-road vehicle no matter where it
happened. Zito owned the snowmobile on which he was riding when the accident occurred, and
the accident occurred on property that he did not own. Under the clear and unambiguous terms
of the policy, Allstate is not liable for the payment of benefits to Richard Wagner, and summary
disposition was proper.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
1
The trial court relied on Connors v Cook, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of
Appeals, issued October 19, 2001 (Docket No. 222224), in which another panel of this Court
held that a “racing snowmobile” was a “motor vehicle” for purposes of an exclusion in a
homeowner’s insurance policy.
-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.
