Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #271703; Unpublished
Judges Donofrio, Bandstra, and Zahra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to No-Fault PIP Benefits: Bodily Injury Requirement [3105(1)]
Disqualification for Intentionally Suffered Injury [3105(4)]
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [3115]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
No-Fault Insurer Claims for Reimbursement: Insurer Unequal Priority Reimbursement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for plaintiff rental car company in this action for reimbursement of no-fault personal injury protection benefits, finding plaintiff was not liable for PIP benefits, because the vehicle, which was properly parked at the time of the collision, and the injured person, who was using the vehicle as a shield, was not an occupant of the rental vehicle at the time of the collision. Therefore, the court found defendants, the City of Detroit and the Detroit Police Department, whose police officer rammed the rental car, liable for the injured driver’s PIP benefits.
The injured person was driving a motor vehicle he had rented from plaintiff when he was stopped by a City of Detroit police officer. As the officer approached the rental car, the driver sped away at a high rate of speed. A police chase ensued which ended when the driver lost control. The rental car came to rest off the traveled portion of the road, at which time the driver exited the vehicle and, with the vehicle between him and the police cruiser, pointed a gun at the officer. The officer ducked, accelerated, and crashed into the driver’s side door of the rental car.
Plaintiff paid the driver’s PIP benefits but sought indemnification upon discovering the driver had not been an occupant at the time of the collision. The trial court determined that because the driver did not have his own insurance and did not reside with an insured spouse or relative, defendants had first priority for payment of PIP benefits under MCL 500.3115(1)(a). This section provides:
“a person suffering accidental bodily injury while not an occupant of a motor vehicle shall claim [PIP] benefits from insurers in the following order of priority:
(a) Insurers of owners or registrants of motor vehicles involved in the accident.”
On appeal, defendants argued that they were not liable, because the driver did not sustain “accidental bodily injury.” Instead, defendants claimed the driver’s injuries were intentionally caused. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that under MCL 500.3105(4), bodily injury is accidental unless the injury was intentionally caused. In this regard, the statute provides:
“Bodily injury is accidental as to a person claiming personal protection insurance benefits unless suffered intentionally by the injured person or caused intentionally by the claimant. Even though a person knows that bodily injury is substantially certain to be caused by his act or omission, he does not cause or suffer injury intentionally if he acts or refrains from acting for the purpose of averting injury to property or to any person including himself.”
The Court of Appeals then noted that when the police officer rammed the rental car, the driver had completely exited the vehicle and was crouched behind the car door. Based upon these facts, the court determined the defendants could not show the driver was an occupant of the rental car or that he intentionally sustained his injuries. In this regard, the court stated:
“The facts show that Hurt completely exited the vehicle and crouched down behind the door of the rental car while he had his weapon drawn to protect himself from possible injury while he aimed at Wimmer. The record also shows that Wimmer acted in self-defense when he attempted to contain Hurt between the police vehicle and the rented vehicle. Stated otherwise, defendants have not shown that Hurt’s injuries were ‘suffered intentionally’ by Hurt, or ‘caused intentionally’ by Hurt. MCL 500.3105(4). Therefore, defendants have not supported a claim that Hurt intended to injure himself so as to disqualify him from claiming accidental bodily injury outside of MCL 500.3105(1) and (4).
Defendants next argued that the driver’s injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. Instead, defendants argued the injuries occurred because the driver pointed a gun at the police officer. In rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeals cited McKenzie v Auto Club Insurance Association, 458 Mich 214 (1998) [RB #1994], and held that when the officer drove his vehicle into the rental car, he was using the vehicle as a motor vehicle. In so holding, the court stated:
“Under McKenzie, ‘the Legislature intended coverage of injuries resulting from the use of motor vehicles when closely related to their transportational function and only when engaged in that function.’ The facts of this case show that the unmarked police vehicle was driven by Wimmer, accelerated into, and collided with the rented vehicle. It is undisputed that Hurt’s injuries arose out of Wimmer’s use of the police vehicle as a motor vehicle when he drove into plaintiff’s vehicle and into Hurt. We are not persuaded that Hurt’s injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.”
