Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #226910; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, Wilder and Zahra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Transportational Function Requirement [3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion (approved for publication on June 21, 2002), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of no-fault benefits to plaintiff on the basis that his injury did not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. The plaintiff in this case was injured when he was using a fuel truck to refuel a large motorized molten steel hauler. The molten steel hauler (referred to as a “Klein steel hauler”) was not a motor vehicle. However, it did require motor vehicle fuel in order to move across the work place premises. The plaintiff sustained injury when the driver of the Klein steel hauler, not realizing that the refueling operation was still proceeding, drove away from the fuel truck, causing plaintiff to fall to the ground. The Court of Appeals held that even though the fuel truck was a motor vehicle at the time of the accident, it was not being used as a motor vehicle at the time of the injury, but was rather being used as a “fueling station.” Thus, it was too far removed from the transportational function of the motor vehicle such that the vehicle was only incidentally involved in the accident. In denying no-fault benefits, the court noted that when plaintiff sustained his injuries:
“he had virtually no physical or practical connection to the fueling truck. He was standing on a ladder that was leaning against the Klein steel hauler. The Klein steel hauler, not the fuel truck, moved, causing him to fall. That he was holding the fuel hose from the fuel truck at the time he fell was completely coincidental.... Under the facts here, we are satisfied that the fuel truck’s relationship to the accident as a whole was merely coincidental and that its transportational function had no connection to the accident at all. Thus, the fuel truck was not being used as a motor vehicle at the time of the accident.”
