COA 373425 MARCUS MCADOO V ARRIANNA WARE Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 1/28/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
MARCUS MCADOO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
UNPUBLISHED
January 28, 2026
8:39 AM
v
ARRIANNA WARE and JOSHUA POWELL,
Defendants,
and
No. 373425
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 23-006729-NI
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and MARIANI and TREBILCOCK, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this uninsured and underinsured motorist benefits case, the trial court granted partial
summary disposition in defendant insurance company’s favor solely on the basis of deposition
testimony providing that the owner of the vehicle in question was insured at the time of the
accident. Other record evidence, however, undermines that testimony. We reverse and remand
for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a fatal motor vehicle accident in the early morning hours of May 20,
2022, in Detroit. Defendant Arrianna Ware was driving a vehicle owned by defendant Joshua
Powell. She struck a vehicle driven by plaintiff, Marcus McAdoo, as he was driving to work. One
of Ware’s passengers was not wearing a seatbelt, was ejected from the vehicle, and died from his
injuries. For her role in the accident, Ware was convicted of reckless driving causing death.
Plaintiff brought this suit seeking uninsured motorist (“UM”) and underinsured motorist
(“UIM”) benefits to cover treatment of injuries sustained in the accident under his policy issued
by defendant Auto Owners. The trial court granted partial summary disposition in Auto Owners’

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
favor after noting that, while Ware was uninsured, Powell testified that he had automobile
insurance at the time of the accident. On that basis alone, the trial court concluded that plaintiff
was not entitled to UM and UIM benefits. Plaintiff unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, and
now appeals by leave granted.
II. ANALYSIS
“We review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition.” Kandil-
Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, 512 Mich 95, 109; 1 NW3d 44 (2023) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). Auto Owners moved for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), which
“tests the factual sufficiency of a complaint.” Kandil-Elsayed, 512 Mich at 109 (quotation marks
and citation omitted). In deciding such a motion, “a court reviews the pleadings, admissions, and
other evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,”
Sanders v McLaren-Macomb, 323 Mich App 254, 264; 916 NW2d 305 (2018) (quotation marks
and citation omitted), and “may grant summary disposition in favor of the moving party when . . .
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or
partial judgment as a matter of law,” McNeal v Lincolnshire 2007 Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n,
LLC, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket No. 370549); slip op at 2 (alteration
in original; quotation marks and citation omitted). “A genuine issue of material fact exists when
the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon
which reasonable minds might differ.” West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183; 665 NW2d
468 (2003).
Auto Owners satisfied its “initial burden to support its claim for summary disposition” by
directing the trial court to deposition testimony asserting Powell had insurance at the time of the
accident. McCoig Materials, LLC v Galui Constr, Inc, 295 Mich App 684, 693; 818 NW2d 410
(2012). That shifted the burden to plaintiff to “demonstrate that a genuine issue of disputed fact
exists for trial.” Id. To do so, plaintiff “must, by affidavits or as otherwise provided [by the court
rules], set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” MCR 2.116(G)(4).
We hold that plaintiff adequately rebutted Auto Owners’ motion and thus the trial court erred in
granting partial summary disposition in Auto Owners’ favor.
Numerous facts in the record contradict Auto Owners’ assertion that Powell was insured
at the time of the accident. Consider first a carrier discovery report showing that Powell’s policy
from April 19, 2022 through October 19, 2022—i.e., the one that Powell said was in effect at the
time of the accident—was “cancelled.” Next take Powell’s driving history. Five months before
the May accident, he was cited for driving without insurance, which calls into question Powell’s
testimony explaining he knew he had insurance because his birthday is in January and insurance
was required for license plate renewal at that time. Consider too plaintiff’s submission of a report
from L.A. Insurance showing its policy for Powell expired on February 1, 2020, and that there
were no other policies after that time, as well as letters from National General, Allstate, and
Progressive stating Powell did not have a policy with them on May 30, 2022. That documentation
runs counter to Powell’s assertion that his insurance would have been through one of those four
entities, and not through any other insurance agency.
The record also reveals other reasons for why jurors could find Powell’s account incredible
and thus insufficient to support Auto Owners’ motion for summary disposition. Powell could not

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
provide the name of his insurance agency or when he obtained the insurance. He was also
unemployed and had no income to pay for such insurance at the time of the accident. And no
insurance was produced at the accident scene. This evidence raises a credibility issue that a jury
must decide. See White v Taylor Distrib Co, Inc, 275 Mich App 615, 630; 739 NW2d 132 (2007).
Finally, Auto Owners’ argument1 that plaintiff’s supporting documentation does not
definitively indicate Powell was uninsured ignores the relative burden shifting that applies when
evaluating a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10). In opposing defendant’s motion for summary
disposition, plaintiff was not required to definitively prove Powell was uninsured. Rather, plaintiff
was only required to provide sufficient evidence to establish a question of material fact as to
whether Powell had insurance. See Piccione v Gillette, 327 Mich App 16, 19; 932 NW2d 197
(2019). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must, there exists a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Powell had insurance at the time of the accident.
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order granting partial summary disposition
in defendant’s favor and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not
retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Philip P. Mariani
/s/ Christopher M. Trebilcock
1 Auto Owners also contends the evidence provided by plaintiff on reconsideration was not
presented during summary disposition and should not be considered on appeal. See Johnson v
Mich Assigned Claims Plan, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 368048);
slip op at 1-2 (citation and quotation marks omitted). On thorough review, we cannot agree with
that representation of the record.

-- 3 of 3 --