COA 372957 CARLOS BYARS-WALKER V JOHN DOE Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 1/16/2026

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
CARLOS BYARS-WALKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
ATLANTIC PHYSICAL THERAPY &
REHABILITATION SERVICES INC,
Intervening Plaintiff,
UNPUBLISHED
January 16, 2026
12:17 PM
v No. 372957
Wayne Circuit Court
JOHN DOE and AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL
LLC,
LC No. 23-013893-NI
Defendants,
and
USA UNDERWRITERS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: REDFORD, P.J., and CAMERON and PATEL, JJ.
PATEL, J. (dissenting).
I disagree with my colleagues that question #8 in USA Underwriters’ application for
insurance is unambiguous. I would hold that a reasonable juror could conclude that plaintiff
reasonably interpreted the question to mean whether his license revocation occurred within three
years of the application. Accordingly, I dissent.
USA Underwriters’ insurance policy application included three questions about the
suspension status of the applicant’s driver’s license:

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
6. Do you or your spouse currently have a suspended, expired or revoked
license?
7. Do any other rated household members, currently have a suspended,
expired or revoked license?
8. In the past three (3) years, have you or any rated household member had
your driver’s license suspended or revoked?
Plaintiff answered “No” to all three questions.
The dispute in this case centers on plaintiff’s response to the third question. Plaintiff
completed the insurance application in February 2023. His license was suspended on October 20,
2018. That suspension lasted until March 17, 2021. Plaintiff’s license was reinstated on
December 8, 2022. Plaintiff attested that because his license was suspended in October 2018,
more than three years prior to his February 2023 application for insurance, he reasonably believed
his response was truthful. He did not interpret the question to mean whether he possessed a
suspended license within that time.
The majority holds that question 8 is unambiguous and directs an applicant to answer
whether they were in possession of a suspended license at any time during the three years prior to
the date of the application. I disagree. The question “have you had your driver’s license
suspended” in the past three years is a separate and distinct inquiry from “have you had a
suspended driver’s license” in the past three years. The first can be read as asking about the timing
of a specific action: the suspension of your driver’s license. The date a license is suspended is not
the same thing as having a suspended license. If USA Underwriters intended to ask whether the
applicant had a suspended license anytime within three years prior to the date of application, it
could have easily asked that question. But that is not what question 8 poses. Instead, question 8
asks whether “In the past three (3) years, have you or any rated household member had your
driver’s license suspended or revoked?” This question can be reasonably interpreted to mean
whether the initial suspension occurred sometime within the past three years. At the very least,
this question is ambiguous, and plaintiff’s good faith answer to the question does not provide
grounds to revoke his policy ab initio.
The majority cites Questions 6 and 7 as informing the meaning of question 8 unambiguous,
reasoning that, since Questions 6 and 7 deal with a currently expired or suspended license, question
8 must be asking about whether the applicant had a suspended license in the past three years. But
this analysis diverges from the actual language of question 8, which is the best way to determine
its meaning. As stated above, if USA Underwriters meant to ask whether the applicant had a
suspended or revoked license within three years of the date of the application, it could have easily
and clearly asked that question. Question 8 instead asks whether the applicant had their license
revoked in the past three years, a different inquiry entirely. Ambiguous language should be
construed against the drafter, in this case, USA Underwriters. Klapp v United Ins Group Agency,
Inc, 468 Mich 459, 472; 663 NW2d 447 (2003).
I would hold that the trial court erred by holding that question 8 in the application is
unambiguous and required plaintiff to answer whether he had a suspended license anytime during

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
the three years prior to the application date. Instead, I would hold that a reasonable juror could
conclude that plaintiff reasonably interpreted the question to mean whether his license was initially
revoked anytime within the past three years. To the extent this language is ambiguous, it should
be construed against USA Underwriters; it should not be used as evidence that plaintiff made a
material misrepresentation on his application. There is no justification to revoke plaintiff’s policy
of insurance ab initio and deny coverage after the accident. I dissent.
/s/ Sima G. Patel

-- 3 of 3 --