Uninsured motorist (UM) benefits; Hearsay; MRE 801(c); Admission of a party-opponent; MRE 801(d)(2)

The court held that it did not see “any error in the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that plaintiff failed to provide plausibly admissible evidence” showing that both defendants-Podolan and Whiteside “were uninsured at the time of the collision.” Thus, it found “no grounds to disrupt the trial court’s award of summary disposition to defendants.” The parties did “not dispute that, under the terms of her insurance policy, plaintiff must show that both Whiteside and Podolan were uninsured at the time of the collision in order to sustain her claim for UM benefits.” On appeal, plaintiff argued that two “pieces of evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding Whiteside’s and Podolan’s uninsured status: (1) plaintiff’s own affidavit attesting that Podolan told her, in Whiteside’s presence, immediately after the collision that they did not have insurance, which was admissible as an admission of a party-opponent under MRE 801(d)(2); and (2) certain entries in the police report indicating a lack of insurance, which could also be properly considered for purposes of summary disposition.” The court disagreed “that this evidence was sufficient to defeat defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), as plaintiff has failed to demonstrate its content was plausibly admissible.” As to her “affidavit, plaintiff’s account of the post-collision statement made by Podolan falls within the general definition of hearsay.” Plaintiff maintained “that Podolan’s statement is not hearsay, and is thus admissible, because it was an admission by a party-opponent under MRE 801(d)(2). As defendants point out, however, caselaw indicates that the mere fact that Podolan is adverse to plaintiff in this case does not mean that Podolan’s statements are admissible against defendants.” The court held that beyond “a general and conclusory citation to MRE 801(d)(2), plaintiff has not offered, below or on appeal, any legal support for the proposition that Podolan’s statement is admissible against defendants under that court rule. Nor has [she] argued on appeal that the statement is potentially admissible on some other basis.” Thus, she did not “show that her account of Podolan’s statement was plausibly admissible such that it can be properly considered for purposes of summary disposition.” The court also found that her “reliance on the content of the police report” fell short. The record was “inadequate to demonstrate the plausible admissibility of the specific content of the report at issue.”