Uninsured (UM)/Underinsured (UIM) benefits; Summary disposition standard; MCR 2.116(C)(10); Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc; Burden shifting; MCR 2.116(G)(4); McCoig Materials, LLC v Galui Constr, Inc; Credibility determinations; White v Taylor Distrib Co, Inc

The court held that the trial court erred by granting partial summary disposition to defendant insurer on plaintiff’s UM/UIM claims because the record, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, created a genuine issue of material fact whether the vehicle owner was insured at the time of the accident. Plaintiff was injured in a crash when defendant-driver, operating defendant-owner’s vehicle, struck plaintiff’s car, and a passenger was ejected and died. The trial court granted partial summary disposition to the insurer “solely on the basis of deposition testimony” that the vehicle owner had insurance, then denied reconsideration. On appeal, the court held that plaintiff rebutted the motion because numerous “facts in the record contradicted” the insurer’s assertion the owner was insured at the time of the accident, including a carrier discovery report showing the purported policy was “cancelled,” documentation showing a prior policy “expired,” and insurer letters stating the owner had no policy with them on the relevant date. The court also noted evidence supporting disbelief of the owner’s account, including that he “could not provide the name of his insurance agency,” had “no income to pay for such insurance,” and “no insurance was produced at the accident scene,” which “raises a credibility issue that a jury must decide.” The court rejected the insurer’s framing that plaintiff had to definitively prove lack of insurance, explaining plaintiff only had to raise a fact question, and concluded there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner had insurance at the time of the accident. Reversed and remanded.