Court rules insured's UIM coverage did not apply to incident causing his injuries

Ronald Micallef worked as an engineer for the company Continental Tevas.  He was driving a prototype Ford Fusion to a Ford Motor engineering campus in Dearborn when he was rear-ended.  He had bought Underinsured Motorist Coverage from AAA, his insurer, however,  when he filed a claim, AAA denied it.  AAA pointed to language in the UIM policy that excluded coverage for any injury suffered in a vehicle "furnished" by the insured's employer. 

The Court held that the exclusionary language applied because Micallef was in the course of his employment with Tevas, even though in some sense, the vehicle was "furnished" by FoMoCo, and not Tevas.  The judges ruled that the term was not "ambiguous" in this setting and that AAA could apply it in the broadest manner possible. Micallef's claim was summarily thrown out.   In the past, an insurer's exclusions were interpreted strictly against the company that drafted the policy.  Not so in Michigan with an insurance-oriented Republican majority of judges.