Opinion
No. 120366.
November 27, 2002.
COA: 220477, Presque Isle CC: 95-002005-CZ
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the August 24, 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered, and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the decision of the Court of Appeals is VACATED. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding, without any apparent analysis, that the word "collapse" is ambiguous. The fact that a policy does not define a term does not render the term ambiguous. Henderson v State Farm Fire Casualty Co, 460 Mich. 348, 354 (1999). Rather, reviewing courts must interpret such a term in accordance with its commonly used meaning. Id. Further, a term is not ambiguous merely because it is susceptible to different commonly used meanings where, through application of rules of judicial interpretation, one of these meanings can be discerned as that intended by the parties. In light of this error, we REMAND to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration. Upon remand, in addition to construing the contractual term "collapse," the Court of Appeals should consider whether any disputed factual issues exist regarding: (1) the cause of the damage to defendants' home; (2) whether a collapse occurred causing damage to defendants' home; and (3) whether the policy covered such damage.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
Weaver and Kelly, JJ., would deny leave to appeal.