Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 329041; Unpublished
Judges Riordan, Fort Hood and Servitto; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of/Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving a plaintiff who was injured when his motorcycle struck tire debris on the road, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was proper for defendant-insurer because plaintiff failed to establish, under MCL 500.3105 and MCL 500.3114, the required causal connection between the crash and the involvement of a motor vehicle.
Plaintiff was injured when he lost control of his motorcycle after hitting tire debris on the roadway. Plaintiff had a no-fault policy with defendant GEICO. Plaintiff submitted claims for PIP benefits, which GEICO denied. Plaintiff filed this action against GEICO seeking benefits. GEICO moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff’s accident did not “arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle,” as required by §3105(1), and that a motor vehicle was not involved, as required by §3114(5). GEICO argued the tire debris did not fall within the definition of “motor vehicle” under the insurance policy or the No-Fault Act, and therefore plaintiff’s injuries did not result from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff claimed that summary disposition was improper because the tire debris that caused his accident undisputedly came from a motor vehicle, meaning that his accident necessarily involved a motor vehicle. The trial court granted summary disposition for GEICO, finding the accident did not involve the “ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.”
The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing with the trial court that plaintiff’s injuries did not “arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.” According to the Court, plaintiff’s accident did not sufficiently involve a motor vehicle to support a PIP claim under §3105(1).
Noting there is no “iron clad rule” about what level of vehicle involvement is sufficient under §3105(1), the Court explained there must be a “causal connection” between the injury and the ownership, maintenance or use of the motor vehicle, and that this connection must be more than “incidental, fortuitous or but for.”
Turning to the facts of the case, the Court of Appeals said plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a PIP claim for which relief could be granted. The Court observed:
“Plaintiff contends the trial court erred by assuming that the tire debris were not related to a motor vehicle, but plaintiff’s claim fails even if we assume that the tire debris came from a motor vehicle. At most, an unknown motor vehicle passively contributed to plaintiff’s accident by depositing the debris in the road. Accordingly, plaintiff’s injuries were only tangentially related to a motor vehicle, as there is no indication that a motor vehicle engaged in any activity that played a causal role in the accident. … Likewise, as this Court previously concluded in Ricciuti v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 101 Mich App 683, 685-686; 300 NW2d 681 (1980), an accident that results from debris that was deposited by an unknown motor vehicle at some point prior to the incident is merely ‘incidentally or fortuitously related to the ownership, use, or maintenance of a motor vehicle.’”
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that GEICO’s motion for summary disposition was properly granted because plaintiff did not establish the requisite causal connection.
