State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Huyghe

• Decision Date: 30 October 1985
• Docket Number: 75564,Docket Nos. 75553
• Parties: STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John HUYGHE, Julia Daubenspeck, and Paul Daubenspeck, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 442

375 N.W.2d 442

144 Mich.App. 341

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John HUYGHE, Julia Daubenspeck, and Paul Daubenspeck Defendants-Appellants.

Docket Nos. 75553, 75564.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Nov. 6, 1984.

Decided July 16, 1985.

Released for Publication Oct. 30, 1985.

Walton, Smith, Phillips & Dixon, P.C., Traverse City, for plaintiff-appellee.

Rolinski & Kirkpatrick by Ronald J. Kirkpatrick, Gaylord, for John and Shari Huyghe.

Lippitt, Lyons, Wolney, Goldpaugh, Sudnick & Grand by Richard T. Wolney, Southfield, for Paul and Julia Daubenspeck.

Before ROBERT B. BURNS, P.J., and ALLEN and BROWN ^*, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff filed this declaratory action seeking a determination that plaintiff was not obligated to defend and pay any judgment against defendants Huyghes in a suit for damages for personal injury brought against the Huyghes by defendants Daubenspeck. Defendants appeal as of right from a grant of summary judgment, GCR 1963, 117.2(3), in plaintiff's favor.

Defendant Julia Daubenspeck was physically injured when she was struck in the back of the head by a cleat, which was attached to the Huyghes' house to secure a clothesline attached between the house and garage. The cleat was pulled free from the house when defendant John Huyghe, Julia's son-in-law, hit the clothesline while driving his pickup truck under the clothesline.

In a separate action against the Huyghes, Julia sought damages and medical expenses for her bodily injuries. Her husband, Paul, sought damages for the loss of services and companionship of his wife. The Daubenspecks alleged that the Huyghes had negligently maintained the premises and negligently located and installed the clothesline and cleat because defendant John Huyghe regularly drove his truck under the clothesline between the house and garage.

The homeowners' policy issued to the Huyghes by plaintiff provided:

"If a claim is made or a suit is brought against any insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, we will:

"a. pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the insured is legally liable; and

"b. provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice. * * * "

The policy also contained the following exclusion:

"1. Coverage L--Personal Liability and Coverage M--Medical Payments to Others do not apply to:

* * *

* * *

"e. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of:

"(2) a motor vehicle owned or operated by, or rented or loaned to any insured * * *."

The duty of an insurance company to provide a defense to a lawsuit brought against its insured is separate and severable from its duty to indemnify the insured for liability imposed after trial. Reurink Brothers Star Silo, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 131 Mich.App. 139, 142, 345 N.W.2d 659 (1983). In Detroit Edison Co. v. Michigan Mutual Ins. Co., 102 Mich.App. 136, 141-142, 301 N.W.2d 832 (1980), this Court summarized the insurer's duty to defend:

"The duty of the insurer to defend the insured depends upon the allegations in the complaint of the third party in his or her action against the insured. This duty is not limited to meritorious suits and may even extend to actions which are groundless, false, or fraudulent, so long as the allegations against the insured even arguably come within the policy coverage. An insurer has a duty to defend, despite theories of liability asserted against any insured which are not covered under the policy, if there are any theories of recovery that fall within the policy. * * * The duty to defend cannot be limited by the precise language of the pleadings. The insurer has the duty to look behind the third party's allegations to analyze whether coverage is possible. * * * In a case of doubt as to whether or not the complaint against the insured alleges a liability of the insurer under the policy, the doubt must be resolved in the insured's favor." (Citations omitted.)

The homeowners' policy provision in question excludes personal liability coverage for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, or loading or unloading of a motor vehicle. It is plaintiff's position that because the present action arose out of the use of a motor vehicle, there is no coverage and no duty to defend. Defendants argue that this provision should be construed to exclude coverage only where the injury arose solely from the use of a motor vehicle and if an injury has a non-auto-related cause, the exclusion should not apply.

If the terms of an insurance policy are plain and unambiguous, the plain meaning should be given effect. However, when a policy contains an ambiguity, it is construed in favor of the insured. Michigan Mutual Ins. Co. v. Sunstrum, 111 Mich.App. 98, 102, 315 N.W.2d 154 (1981), lv. den. 414 Mich. 890 (1982).

In Sunstrum, this Court held that there was no coverage for negligent...