Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #249591; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Fitzgerald and Owens; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Parked Vehicles Covered by Workers Comp [3106(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that a person who was injured while attempting to place a tarp over a load in the bed of a truck used in the course of his employment, and for which he received workers’ compensation benefits, is not entitled to no-fault benefits under MCL 500.3106(2)(a). This appeal was decided without oral argument. Plaintiff, a trash hauler, fell while attempting to place a tarp over a load on his parked truck. He initially received workers’ compensation benefits, but sought no-fault benefits after his workers’ compensation benefits were terminated. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition, ruling there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was injured while attempting to load or unload a parked vehicle when the accident occurred. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that benefits were unavailable under MCL 500.3106(2)(a) because plaintiff received workers’ compensation and placing a tarp over a load before driving away is part of the loading process. In this regard, the court stated:
“The terms ‘loading’ and ‘unloading’ as used in MCL 500.3106(2)(a) have been broadly interpreted to mean the complete operation of loading or unloading, including activities incidental to those operations. . . . Securing a load on a truck has been held to constitute an activity incidental to the operation of loading the vehicle. . . . Plaintiff was injured when he fell while attempting to place a tarp over a load on his parked vehicle. He was required to secure the load with a tarp before driving the truck to the dump. Plaintiff’s act of placing the tarp over the load was the final step of the loading process, and thus was within MCL 500.3106(2)(a). Plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits under MCL 500.3106(2)(a).”
