Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 337648
Judges Sawyer, Borrello, Servitto; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to Benefits for Out of State Accidents
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curiam opinion involving sections 500.3111 and 500.3114 of the no-fault statute, the Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant insurance company. The Court found that plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits because he was not an “occupant” of a vehicle at the time of his out-of-state accident. The Court held that summary disposition was proper because defendant was not required to pay out benefits.
Plaintiff, Ibrahim Odeh, worked for a trucking company and was driving in Georgia when he observed smoke coming from his truck. Plaintiff pulled over and approached the rear portion of the vehicle to inspect it when there was an explosion. Plaintiff was seriously injured in the blast.
Plaintiff sought PIP benefits from the truck’s insurer and defendant—Sentry Insurance. In addition, plaintiff was domiciled with his father who had a private policy with third-party defendant, State Farm. Sentry filed a complaint alleging that “plaintiff was covered under the State Farm policy and State Farm was in the highest order of priority.”
The dispute between the insurers was resolved before this action. Plaintiff appealed after the trial court awarded summary judgment to defendant. The primary issue before the court was whether plaintiff was entitled to PIP benefits from Sentry.
The Court first examined MCL 500.3111, because the accident occurred in Georgia.
Under this section, plaintiff would be entitled to benefits as “a named insured” on the policy or “an occupant of the vehicle involved in the accident.” The Court incorporated statements plaintiff made during a deposition to ascertain his location and position when the explosion occurred. By his own admission, plaintiff was standing outside the truck and making no physical contact with the vehicle when the explosion happened. He leaned over to look under the truck but did not touch it.
Finding that he was not an occupant at the time of the accident, the Court found Rednour v Hastings Mut Ins Co, 468 Mich 241, 249 (2003), to be binding and controlling. In Rednour, the Michigan Supreme Court stringently defined an occupant as one “physically inside a vehicle.” Plaintiff was not physically inside the truck during the accident. He was “standing on his own two feet” and was “approximately six inches away.” Thus he was not an “occupant of a vehicle” at the time he was injured. The Court held that plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits under the no-fault act.
The Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that he was a named insured because the declaration page clearly identified plaintiff’s employer as the insured.
Finally, the Court declined to examine section 500.3114(4) after finding that plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits.
[Section] 3114(4) might establish Sentry as a priority payer of PIP benefits if plaintiff was entitled to PIP benefits from multiple insurers, including Sentry. But, because as discussed above, Sentry owes no PIP benefits to plaintiff, Sentry cannot be a priority payer and § 3114(4) simply does not apply to this case. For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court correctly interpreted the no-fault act and the insurance policy at issue in this case as excluding PIP benefits payable to plaintiff by defendant Sentry.
