Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #231013; Unpublished
Judges Hood, Saad and E. M. Thomas; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits as a result of injuries he sustained when he fell off a ladder when a rope that was tied to the insured’s party pickup truck was unable to keep the tree limb to which it was tied from hitting the lower trunk, thus causing plaintiff to fall from his ladder. In this case, the court stated that plaintiff’s injury was not closely connected to the function of the pickup as a transportation device and, therefore, the injuries could not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, as required by MCL 500.3105(1).
Plaintiff became paralyzed after falling from a ladder while cutting down a tree. He stood on a ladder about 12 to 16 feet above the ground, cutting the upper portion of the tree with a chain saw. One end of a rope was tied to the upper portion of the tree, and the other end of the rope was tied to the trailer hitch of plaintiff’s pickup truck. Another person drove the pickup truck away from the tree to maintain resistance on the rope and to keep it taut. The intent was for the upper portion of the tree to be safely pulled down from the lower trunk and onto the ground. When the upper portion of the tree finally came loose, it hit the lower trunk, thus causing plaintiff to fall from his ladder receiving serious injuries.
In the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the insurance company, plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals. In relying on the Supreme Court precedent of McKenzie v Auto Club Insurance Association, 458 Mich 214; 580 NW2d 424 (1998), the Court of Appeals held that the Legislature’s use of the phrase “as a motor vehicle” in MCL 500.3105(1), indicated that the Legislature’s intent was that the No-Fault Act provide coverage for injuries that result “from the use of motor vehicles when closely related to their transportational function and only when engaged in that function.” Here, the court held that plaintiff’s injury was not closely connected to the function of the pickup and the transportation device, but rather, it was related to the use of the pickup truck as a tool.
