Uninsured motorist (UM) benefits; Policy requirement that the other driver was negligent; Effect of a driver leaving the scene of a collision; Johnson v Austin; Whether there was sufficient evidence that the other driver was speeding

Finding that this was “not an ‘atypical’ case in which the other driver’s flight created a presumption of negligence,” the court concluded that given “the lack of evidence that the other driver was negligent, the trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff’s claim” for UM benefits despite that driver’s flight. Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for defendants-insurers. There did not appear to be any “dispute that plaintiff’s insurance policy required the other driver to have been negligent in order for plaintiff to receive benefits.” The trial court’s ruling “was based upon a lack of evidence that the other driver was negligent.” Plaintiff argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the other driver’s negligence. The only evidence supporting her contention that the other driver was speeding was her “testimony that she did not see the other car before the collision[.]” But the court found that the “inference that the other car was speeding is merely speculation[.]” Plaintiff asserted “that, because the other driver fled the scene of the collision, the trial court should have drawn the inference that the other driver was negligent, which would have precluded summary disposition. Some evidence indicated that the other driver left the scene of the collision.” In Johnson, the Michigan Supreme Court discussed the relevance of a driver leaving the scene of an accident. Even “assuming that the other driver fled, that alone does not establish that the other driver was negligent because there was other evidence of the circumstances of the collision.” Plaintiff provided testimony about the circumstances. “There were also two other witnesses to the collision, i.e., the two passengers in [her] Jeep, but it is unclear whether they could provide any information about” it because the record did not contain any affidavits or testimony from them. Here, the inference drawn from the other driver’s “flight can be weighed with the circumstances of the collision as one of the factors in determining the other driver’s negligence.” The court concluded that, taking “the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, there is insufficient evidence that the other driver was speeding.”