Whether a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether mutual mistake warranted reformation of the insurance contract; Motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10); Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ, Inc.; Reforming a contract to effectuate the parties’ actual agreement; Casey v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.; Mutual mistake; Kaftan v. Kaftan; Principle that listing a person as a driver on a no-fault policy does not make the person a “named insured”; Dobbelaere v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.; Whether defendants were unilaterally mistaken; Whether the owner of the policy had a duty to review the policy for adequate coverage

Holding that the trial court erred by concluding that there was a genuine issue of material fact whether mutual mistake warranted reformation of the insurance contract, the court reversed the denial of plaintiff-Auto-Owners’s summary disposition motion, and remanded. Defendants contended “that both they and Auto-Owners mistakenly believed that Policy 42 provided coverage for all listed drivers for any vehicle they occupied,” including defendants (who were scheduled drivers on Policy 42). As evidence of each party’s mistaken belief, defendants cited the policy owner’s “testimony that he believed that Policy 42 insured all listed vehicles and drivers and Auto-Owners’s receipt of premium payments for PIP benefits on all seven vehicles listed in the policy.” The court held that the trial court erred by concluding that a genuine issue of material fact as to mutual mistake remained. On the contrary, the case reflected “defendants’ unilateral mistake regarding the terms of Policy 42. The policy clearly stated that PIP benefits were not available for out-of-state accidents unless the injured person was occupying the insured motor vehicle or the injured person was a named insured under the policy or a spouse or resident relative of a named insured. The rental vehicle was not an insured vehicle, and defendants were not named insureds or spouses or resident relatives of a named insured.” In response to Auto-Owners’s summary disposition motion, defendants submitted no evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact as to “whether Auto-Owners believed that the coverage available under Policy 42 was different than what was stated in the policy.”