Background
Michigan State Police Trooper David Bellestri was assigned a 2019 Chevrolet Tahoe for his work as a K-9 handler. He drove the Tahoe to and from work, kept it in his home garage, and worked from it during nearly every shift, but he was prohibited from using it for personal purposes.
While Bellestri was directing traffic during a highway closure, another vehicle struck the parked Tahoe and injured him. After learning that the Tahoe’s insurance did not provide uninsured-motorist benefits, he sought those benefits under his personal automobile policy with Memberselect Insurance Company. Memberselect argued that coverage was excluded because the Tahoe was furnished or available for Bellestri’s regular use, but the trial court found that issue presented a factual question and denied summary disposition.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that no genuine issue of material fact existed: the Tahoe was furnished or available for Bellestri’s regular use as a matter of law. The vehicle was accessible to him because he kept its keys and stored it at home, and his use was normal and recurring because he drove it to and from every work shift and worked from it during his shifts.
The court rejected Bellestri’s argument that the exclusion did not apply because his use was limited to work. The policy required regular use, not unlimited, unfettered, or personal use. Because Bellestri was injured while occupying a regularly used vehicle that was not a covered auto, the uninsured-motorist exclusion applied. The court reversed and remanded for entry of summary disposition in Memberselect’s favor.
Key Takeaways
- A vehicle may be “available for regular use” even when the insured may use it only for work.
- Keeping the vehicle and its keys at home and using it during nearly every shift established accessible, normal, and recurring use.
- Because Michigan does not require uninsured-motorist coverage, courts enforce the unambiguous terms of the insurance contract as written.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that regular-use exclusions can reach employer-provided vehicles despite substantial restrictions on how they may be used. The relevant inquiry is whether the vehicle is regularly accessible and used by the insured, not whether the insured owns it or may use it without limitation.
For insurers and insured employees, the ruling underscores the potential coverage gap when an employee routinely operates a work vehicle that lacks uninsured-motorist coverage and is not listed as a covered auto under the employee’s personal policy.