Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #247093; Unpublished
Judges Gage, Meter, and Fort Hood; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Entering Into or Alighting From [3106(1)(c)]
Causal Connection Requirement [3106]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Physical Contact Requirement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claims for uninsured motorist benefits and PIP benefits. Plaintiff’s decedent was her elderly mother who slipped and fell in her parking lot a few moments after she had exited her vehicle. Plaintiff’s theory was that her mother had slipped on an oily substance on the surface of the parking lot, which had been left there by an unidentified motor vehicle. Therefore, plaintiff’s mother was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits because she sustained an injury arising out of the operation of an unidentified motor vehicle which had discharged an object causing injury to the plaintiff. Plaintiff also claimed her mother was entitled to no-fault benefits because she sustained an injury while alighting from a vehicle within the meaning of §3106(1)(c) of the statute.
With regard to plaintiff’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the court affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant for the reason there was simply no factual basis from which to conclude that plaintiff’s mother had fallen as a result of oil on the parking lot and that the oil had actually come from a motor vehicle. There were no actual eyewitnesses to the fall. Plaintiff’s mother died from her injuries several days after the accident and plaintiff, who was present, did not actually see the fall. Therefore, the actual cause of the fall was purely speculative.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for no-fault PIP benefits. The court held there was inadequate evidence to conclude that plaintiff’s injury satisfied the provisions of §3106(c) because, “there is simply insufficient evidence that [plaintiff’s decedent] fell while alighting from the vehicle. Indeed, even though the truck’s door was open at the time of her fall, this in no way precludes the possibility that [plaintiff’s decedent] had already disembarked from the truck at the time she fell. If she had ‘physically left’ the vehicle at the time of the fall, then PIP benefits are unavailable. . . . It is entirely possible, in this case, that [plaintiff’s decedent] fell after planting her feet on the ground. Given this possibility, plaintiff’s claim was based on mere conjecture, and the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition to Pioneer with respect to the claim for PIP benefits.”
