Uninsured motorist benefits; “Entitled”; Authority to drive on public roads; MCL 257.301(1); Valid driver’s license; Huggins v Bohman; Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange (CURE)

As to plaintiff’s uninsured motorist benefits claim against defendant-CURE, the court held that as in Huggins, plaintiff here “failed to proffer a factual scenario wherein plaintiff, absent a valid driver’s license, could have reasonably maintained a good-faith belief that he was entitled to operate” defendant-French’s vehicle. Thus, the trial court properly granted CURE summary disposition. Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving his girlfriend’s (French) vehicle, which was insured under a policy with CURE. “Plaintiff did not have a valid driver’s license and had never held a Michigan driver’s license. He also did not have a policy of automobile insurance in his name.” The issue presented by this appeal was whether plaintiff may recover uninsured motorist coverage benefits under French’s CURE policy where he was injured while driving her vehicle with her express permission even though he did not hold a valid driver’s license. The policy “stated in relevant part that uninsured motorist coverage was not provided for any insured who was ‘[u]sing a vehicle without a reasonable belief that that “insured” is entitled to do so.’” The court found that the “key word to understand relative to this provision is ‘entitled,’ which is not defined by the policy.” Here, it was “undisputed that even if plaintiff had French’s permission to use her vehicle, plaintiff did not have a valid driver’s license.” The court held that as a result, he “did not have the legal right to drive a vehicle in Michigan, and plaintiff therefore could not have held a reasonable belief that he was actually ‘entitled’ to use French’s vehicle.” Although he would have the court “assign great weight to the ‘permission’ granted him by French, while French could authorize plaintiff to use her vehicle relative to her personal ownership rights in the vehicle, she could not provide plaintiff with any authority to drive it on the public roads because that privilege is governed by statute, not by French.” Affirmed.