Underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits; Exclusion for bodily injuries arising from operation or use of an off road vehicle (ORV); Whether the exclusion only refers to the at-fault driver’s operation of the underinsured vehicle & not the insured; Enforcing the policy as written; Motion for reconsideration; Statements made during a motion hearing; Milne v Robinson

Holding that the insured (a protected individual, MM) was not entitled to UIM benefits under the plain language of the policy exclusion at issue, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant-insurer (Citizens). MM was driving a dirt bike when he collided with a motor vehicle driven by defendant-Foley. The policy under which plaintiff sought UIM benefits contained an exclusion “for bodily injury ‘arising from the operation or use of . . . an off road vehicle . . . .’” Plaintiff asserted that the clause only referred “to the at-fault driver’s operation of the underinsured vehicle and not the insured party. However, the exclusionary clause makes no reference to the other vehicle involved in the accident.” The court found that plaintiff essentially asked it “to add language to the exclusionary clause.” It declined to do so because its task was “to enforce the policy as written.” It concluded that plaintiff’s interpretation of the “clause would render it and other portions of the policy nugatory. By definition, UIM benefits are dependent on another motor vehicle being involved in the accident and the driver of that vehicle being at fault for the accident. The policy expressly excludes ORVs from its definition of an ‘underinsured motor vehicle.’ Given the policy’s express exclusion of ORVs from the definition of an underinsured motor vehicle, the only logical interpretation of the exclusionary clause is that the exclusion refers to the vehicle operated or occupied by the injured party.” In this case, “MM was operating an ORV at the time of the accident, and the nature and severity of his injuries were likely affected by his use of an ORV. Consequently, his injuries arose from his operation or use of an ORV, which expressly excluded him from coverage.” The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.