Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 324128; Published
Judges Ronayne Krause, Markey, and Riordan; written by Ronayne Krause
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 325 Mich App 108 (2018); Link to Opinion; Link to Dissent
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Vehicle Maintenance
Causal Connection Requirement
TOPICAL INDEXING:
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published opinion written by Judge Ronayne Krause, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary disposition for Plaintiff Tamara Woodring (“Woodring”) regarding the parked vehicle exception for maintenance. The Court found for Woodring because the vehicle maintenance exception remains good law, cleaning a vehicle is considered maintenance, and there was a sufficient causal nexus between the injuries and the maintenance.
Woodring was washing her car at a self-serve car wash when she slipped, fell, and hurt herself. Woodring slipped on a wet or icy spot on the ground. Woodring sought no-fault benefits from her no-fault insurer Defendant Phoenix Insurance Company (“Phoenix”). Phoenix denied the benefits claiming that Woodring was barred by the parked vehicle exception to the No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3106(1). Woodring brought an action to recover benefits claiming that she fell within the maintenance exception to the parked vehicle exception. The trial court ultimately agreed with Woodring and granted summary disposition in her favor. Phoenix appealed.
The Court of Appeals upheld the grant of summary disposition for Woodring because it found that the maintenance exception was still good law, cleaning a vehicle was maintenance, and there was a sufficient connection between the maintenance and the injury. First, the Court reasoned that the Michigan Supreme Court’s rulings in Lefevers v State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co, 493 Mich 960; 828 NW2d 678 (2013) and Frazier v Allstate Ins Co, 490 Mich 381; 808 NW2d 450 (2011) did not overrule the specific holding in Miller v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 411 Mich 633; 309 NW2d 544 (1981) that the parked vehicles are subject to an exception under MCL 500.3106(1) for maintenance. Moreover, the Court’s prior case in Musall v Golcheff, 174 Mich App 700; 436 NW2d 451 (1989), established that washing a car was maintenance subject to the maintenance exception under MCL 500.3106. The Court further reasoned that Musall remained good law and was not overruled. Finally, the Court determined that the injury was more than “incidental, fortuitous, or but for” because it Musall involved highly similar fact, the act of cleaning prevented Woodring from noticing any slippery patches, and the slippery patch was likely directly caused by the cleaning.
“The fact that Miller was only partially “disavowed” necessarily means that the trial court properly found Miller to also remain “good law” in part. Indeed, our Supreme Court has even recently cited Miller as remaining binding precedent at least in part. . . Nothing in McKenzie, Winter, Putkamer, Willer, Frazier, or Lefevers is inconsistent with this Court’s finding in Musall that washing a car does indeed constitute the kind of maintenance that will avoid the operation of MCL 500.3106(1). . . . Because Musall remains controlling precedent and has already determined that such a causal nexus exists on highly similar facts, we would follow that conclusion even if we did not agree with it.”
Dissent:
Judge Riordan dissented because he did not believe the injury was sufficiently connected to maintenance. The dissent argued that slip was caused by a condition on the land. This connection, without more, did not rise to a sufficient level of causation.
