Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #268021; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Saad, and Cooper; 2-1 (Judge Cooper dissenting); per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Transportational Function Requirement [3105(1)]
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Motor Vehicle Involvement [3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals found that a plaintiff whose arm was amputated while he was repairing a hydraulic lift on a dump truck, was not entitled to personal injury protection benefits because the vehicle was not being used as a dump truck when the accident occurred.
In this case, plaintiff was attempting to pour asphalt from his dump truck at a work site when one of the hydraulic lines supporting the dump box blew. The box fell and, as a consequence, plaintiff was unable to unload the asphalt. Plaintiff drove the truck home in order to fix the hydraulic line. When plaintiff was attempting to adjust a valve, it blew, causing the box to fall and crush his arm. In finding plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits under MCL 500.3105(1), the court determined the injury did not arise out of “the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle” because the injury was not closely related to the transportational function of the dump truck. In so finding, the court distinguished this case from Drake v Citizens Insurance Company, 270 Mich App 22 (2006) [RB #2676].
In Drake, the plaintiff was injured while attempting to unclog an auger system on a grain delivery truck while the truck was being used to deliver grain. The court in Drake held that the plaintiff’s injury was closely related to the vehicle’s transportational purpose because it was a delivery truck and was being used as a delivery truck when the accident occurred. In contrast, the court in this case held that because the injury did not occur while the truck was being used as a dump truck, plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits. In this regard, the court stated:
“The present case is distinguishable from Drake. While plaintiff’s dump truck remained drivable, it was not being used as a dump truck when plaintiff’s injury occurred. Rather, plaintiff had driven the vehicle away from the work site and parked it before attempting to repair the hydraulic system. Therefore, Drake does not mandate the conclusion that plaintiff’s injury arose from his use of the dump truck as a dump truck.”
Next, the court determined that plaintiff was not maintaining the truck as a motor vehicle when the injury occurred, because the hydraulic system he was repairing was not related to the transportational purpose of the vehicle. Therefore, the court concluded plaintiff’s injuries did not arise out of the maintenance of the motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. In this regard, the court stated:
“We further conclude that plaintiff was not maintaining the truck as a motor vehicle when his injury occurred because the hydraulic system was not related to the transportational purpose of the vehicle. Rather plaintiff was repairing a system on the truck that had nothing to do with the vehicle’s capacity ‘to get from one place to another.’ Thus, plaintiff’s injuries did not arise out of the maintenance of the motor vehicle ‘as a motor vehicle’ because the fact of repairing the hydraulic system was not necessary to drive the vehicle. Thus, plaintiff cannot establish that he is entitled to no-fault coverage and this Court need not address whether any of the exceptions to the parked vehicle exclusion are applicable here.”
In her dissent, Judge Cooper explained that since this was a dump truck, its transportational function and its delivery function are inseparable. Since these functions are inseparable, they are both related to the truck’s transportational function and, therefore, “plaintiff’s injury was incurred during the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.”
