In other words, interpretation of the insurance policy, which is the contract between the insurer and the insured, dictates the circumstances under which UM benefits will be provided. Dawson v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich, 293 Mich.App. 563, 568; 810 N.W.2d 106 (2011) (citation omitted).
Neither uninsured motorist (UM) coverage nor UIM coverage is required by Michigan law, and therefore "the terms of coverage are controlled by the language of the contract itself, not by statute." Dawson v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich, 293 Mich App 563, 568; 810 NW2d 106 (2011). As our Supreme Court has explained, "Uninsured motorist coverage is optional—it is not compulsory coverage mandated by the no-fault act," and consequently, "the rights and limitations of such coverage are purely contractual . . . ."
Rory, 293 Mich.App. at 465-466. See also Dawson v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Michigan, 293 Mich.App. 563, 568; 810 N.W.2d 106 (2011). To the extent that plaintiff argues that the underinsured settlement should also be encompassed within "pain and suffering" and excluded from the marital estate under the parties' CJOD, we reject that argument under the facts of this case.
Michigan law does not require underinsured-motorist coverage. Dawson v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich, 293 Mich App 563, 568; 810 NW2d 106 (2011). "Because such insurance is not mandated by statute, the scope, coverage, and limitations of underinsurance protection are governed by the insurance contract and the law pertaining to contracts."
Neither uninsured motorist (UM) coverage nor UIM coverage is required by Michigan law, and therefore "the terms of coverage are controlled by the language of the contract itself, not by statute." Dawson v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Mich. , 293 Mich.App. 563, 568, 810 N.W.2d 106 (2011). As our Supreme Court has explained, "Uninsured motorist coverage is optional—it is not compulsory coverage mandated by the no-fault act," and consequently, "the rights and limitations of such coverage are purely contractual...." Rory v. Continental Ins Co , 473 Mich. 457, 465-466, 703 N.W.2d 23 (2005).
The claim at issue in this case involved underinsured motorist coverage, which is optional coverage not mandated by statute. Dawson v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co, 293 Mich App 563, 568; 810 NW2d 106 (2011). Thus, the express terms of the contract governed the claim.
"Like uninsured-motorist benefits, underinsured-motorist coverage is not required by Michigan law, and the terms of coverage are controlled by the language of the contract itself, not by statute." Dawson v Farm Bureau Ins Co of Mich, 293 Mich.App. 563, 568; 810 N.W.2d 106 (2011). "An insurance policy is similar to any other contractual agreement, and, thus, the court's role is to determine what the agreement was and effectuate the intent of the parties."
The terms of insurance coverage are controlled by the contract's language, not by statute. Dawson v. Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co, 293 Mich.App. 563, 568; 810 N.W.2d 106 (2011).
are controlled by the language of the contract itself, not by statute." Dawson v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich, 293 Mich.App. 563, 568; 810 N.W.2d 106 (2011).
Dawson v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Michigan, 293 Mich.App. 563, 568; 810 N.W.2d 106 (2011). Regarding uninsured and underinsured motorist benefits, this Court "must look to policy interpretation to determine under what circumstances benefits are to be provided."