Action seeking collision coverage; Principle that an insurer must inform an insured of the defenses it intends to raise for denying a claim; Smith v Grange Mut Fire Ins Co of MI; Construction of an insurance contract; Rory v Continental Ins Co; Negligence; Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC; Expert testimony

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for defendants-insurer (Citizens) and agency (Mid-Valley). Plaintiff filed a claim for collision coverage after his truck was totaled in an accident. Citizens denied the claim, indicating the truck was not insured at the time of the accident as it was never informed he had purchased the truck. On appeal, the court first rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by granting Citizens’ motion for summary disposition. He claimed that Citizens, in its initial letter denying coverage, did not state it was denying coverage because he failed to advise Citizens of his purchase of the truck within 14 days of acquiring it, and so Citizens was precluded from relying on that reason during this litigation. It noted plaintiff’s argument “confuses the reason that Citizens denied [his] claim (the [truck] was not covered) with the reason that the [truck] was not covered (plaintiff’s failure to ask Citizens to insure [it] within 14 days of its purchase).” In addition, because the policy language “was unambiguous and applied to the facts of this case, and because there is no dispute that plaintiff did not satisfy that section’s requirements for collision coverage, the trial court did not err by granting” Citizens summary disposition. The court next rejected his claim that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for Mid-Valley. It agreed with the trial court that, on the facts of this case, “an expert was necessary to establish whether Mid-Valley breached the standard of care because such a conclusion was not within a layperson’s knowledge.” It also agreed that the evidence established “Mid-Valley did not breach its duty to plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to present competing evidence creating a question of fact on the issue.” Moreover, accepting his contention that “the duty at issue was whether Mid-Valley failed to procure insurance coverage requested by plaintiff, the trial court still reached the correct result because there is no evidence that tends to establish that plaintiff asked Mid-Valley to procure insurance for the [truck], and thus no question of fact that Mid-Valley did not breach this duty.” Affirmed.