Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 58797; Published
Judges Brennan, Riley, and Payant; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 120 Mich App 156; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [§3115(1)]
Recoupment Between Equal Priority Insurers [§3115(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Payant, the Court of Appeals held that a truck driver who was struck by an automobile while walking along the shoulder of the road in the vicinity of his disabled truck was not an "occupant" of any vehicle at the time of the injury for the reason that there was "no immediate prior occupancy and no physical contact with the tractor-trailer prior to the accident." As a result, the Court ruled that priority for the payment of no-fault benefits should be shared equally under §3115(2) between the plaintiff’s private no-fault insurer and the insurer of plaintiff’s disabled tractor. In ruling that the priority payment should be shared equally by the two insurers, the Court rejected the argument that the insurer of the plaintiff’s tractor stood in a higher order of priority because of its close proximity to the accident, and was therefore a vehicle "involved" in the accident pursuant to §3115(1). There being no reason for differentiating any priorities between the insurer of plaintiff s personal vehicle and the insurer of the tractor-trailer, the Court affirmed the trial court's order of summary judgment which divided the liability for no-fault payments equally between them.
[Author's Comment: It is respectfully submitted that once the Court determined that plaintiff was not an occupant of the tractor-trailer for purposes of establishing priorities under §3114(3), then it would seem that the no-fault insurer of plaintiff's personal vehicle would be wholly responsible for payment of benefits under the terms of §3114(1). This aspect does not appear to be addressed by the Court of Appeals in this decision.]