Michigan Appeals Court Affirms Key Limits on Underinsured Motorist Coverage

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently addressed in an unpublished decision critical principles of insurance policy interpretation.

The court affirmed that policyholders who contractually limit their recovery in a personal injury case cannot later seek Underinsured Motorist (UIM) benefits when that cap falls below their actual damages.

In Al-Mutawakel v Am Select Ins Co, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued June 9, 2025 (Docket No. 370741), 2025 WL 1638264, the plaintiffs were injured in a 2020 motor vehicle accident. They filed suit against the at-fault driver, Samuel Montague, and agreed to limit their damages to the State Farm liability coverage of $20,000/$40,000 in exchange for acceptance of service of the complaint. The plaintiffs then sought UIM benefits from American Select Insurance Company to supplement the shortfall.

American Select denied the claim, arguing that the plaintiffs were not legally entitled to recover additional compensation due to their own stipulation in which they agreed to limit their damages. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of American Select, and the appellate court affirmed the decision.

The appellate court addressed the plaintiffs’ stipulation on damages and how it interacts with UIM policy language. The appellate court first noted the policy language required that the plaintiff be “legally entitled to recover damages from underinsured motorists.” In this instance, the plaintiffs contractually barred themselves when they stipulated to “cap their recovery” at the State Farm policy limits.

Based on this appellate opinion, insurers should take note of how judicially recognized stipulations, especially those limiting recoverable amounts, can directly impact the enforceability and applicability of coverage provisions.

The appellate court, further, rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the policy wording was ambiguous and determined the policy was enforceable as written. This decision highlights the importance of clearly drafting UIM provisions and maintaining a vigilant claims review process.

Share: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Email

Add a comment

Type the following characters: whisky, three, foxtrot, romeo, foxtrot, tango

* Indicates a required field.

Topics

Recent Updates

Plunkett Cooney Blogs

Plunkett Cooney Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When you visit our website, we use cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. For more information about how we use Cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Functional Cookies

Always Active

Some functions of the site require remembering user choices, for example your cookie preference, or keyword search highlighting. These do not store any personal information.

Form Submissions

Always Active

When submitting your data, for example on a contact form or event registration, a cookie might be used to monitor the state of your submission across pages.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek