Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 335231
Judges Talbot, Meter, and Tukel; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Loading / Unloading [§3106(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curium opinion analyzing the parked car exclusion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to the insurance company. The Court held that the gasoline hose was not “property” being loaded into plaintiff’s vehicle during the refueling process.” The auxiliary hose merely facilitated the flow of gasoline from the pump to plaintiff’s vehicle. Although the coiled portion of the hose resting on the ground caused the plaintiff to trip, fall onto the pavement, and injure herself, the gasoline itself—not the hose—was the actual “property” as excepted in MCL 500.3106(1)(b).
The plaintiff in this case, Denise Taylor, tripped over the hose of a gasoline pump and sustained injuries while refueling her vehicle. She subsequently brought suit seeking no-fault benefits after Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance, defendant, denied her claim. The trial court granted summary disposition to defendant after determining that plaintiff’s vehicle was parked within the meaning of MCL 500.3106(1) and that no exceptions to the parked-vehicle exclusion for no-fault benefits applied.
In affirming the trial court’s ruling, the Court first rejected plaintiff’s argument that her act of pumping gas constitutes “maintenance” within MCL 500.3105. The Court applied the holding of Heard v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 414 Mich 139, 143 (1982), and affirmed that a properly parked vehicle, receiving gasoline, is not “involved in an accident” because refueling is not “maintenance” of a motor vehicle.
Next, the Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that her injuries satisfy the parked vehicle exception of MCL 500.3106(1)(b), which allow a person to recover no-fault benefits where “the injury was a direct result of physical contact with . . . property being lifted onto . . . the vehicle in the loading” process. In rejecting this argument, the Court reasoned that the hose was not “property” within the meaning of the statute. Furthermore, the Court explained that “[t]he coiled hose, not the gasoline” caused plaintiff’s injuries, and the “coiled hose was not being lifted onto the vehicle.” Moreover, the Court noted that “[p]laintiff’s injuries did not result from contact with the property she contends was being loaded, i.e., the gasoline.” Therefore, she did not qualify for no-fault benefits. In this regard, the Court stated:
“This case is more analogous to Dowdy v Motorland Ins Co, 97 Mich App 242, 245; 293 NW2d 782 (1980), wherein the plaintiff was injured while unloading property from a parked truck but the injury was caused by “a bundle of steel which had previously been unloaded from another truck . . . .” The Court held that the injury was not “due to contact with property which was being lifted onto or lowered from the vehicle in the loading process.” Id. at 247. Similarly, plaintiff’s injuries did not result from contact with the property she contends was being loaded, i.e., the gasoline.”
