Auto negligence; Coverage dispute; Identity of the vehicle; Identity of the driver; Duty

In Docket Nos. 368595 and 368596, the court held “that the trial court erred by denying the defendants’ motions for summary disposition,” and thus reversed and remanded “for the entry of an order or orders granting [defendant-]Kimberly and the estate summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).” In Docket No. 368622, it reversed “the portion of the trial court’s order denying [plaintiff-]Home-Owners’s motion for summary disposition regarding its duty to indemnify its insured, but [affirmed] the trial court’s denial of summary disposition regarding Home-Owners’s duty to defend its insured;” it accordingly affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded “for entry of an order granting Home-Owners partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10)[.]” The three appeals arose from the same incident. Defendants argued “that the trial court erred by not granting their motions for summary disposition, because [plaintiff-]Stevens did not establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Kimberly’s vehicle was the one that struck Stevens.” Although the court ultimately agreed “that the trial court erred by not granting defendants’ motions, on this specific issue we agree with the trial court that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Kimberly’s HHR was the vehicle that struck Stevens.” The court found that a reasonable juror could find “Kimberly’s HHR was the vehicle that struck Stevens.“ But it agreed with defendants that “even if there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Kimberly’s HHR struck Stevens, Stevens did not establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Brittney was driving the HHR at the time.” It found that the “evidence at summary disposition was insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Brittney was driving the HHR when it struck Stevens.” As to Home-Owners, it concluded that “the trial court erred by denying Home-Owner’s motion for summary disposition with respect to coverage under the policy. “ The court agreed that “Home-Owners has no duty to indemnify in this case.” It then considered “Home-Owners’s argument that Kimberly failed to perform her duties under the policy in response to a loss or claim, insofar as that argument might impact Home-Owners’s duty to defend.” The court agreed “with the trial court that Home-Owners is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law concerning Kimberly’s’ alleged breach of the insurance policy.” Finally, because reversal “regarding Home-Owners’s duty to provide coverage under the policy does not relieve Home-Owners of its duty to defend its insured, and because Home-Owners has not otherwise established that it has no duty to defend Kimberly,” the court reversed “the trial court denial of summary disposition on the issue of coverage, but” affirmed the denial of summary disposition as to “Home-Owners’s duty to defend.”