Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 211521; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Gribbs, and Griffin; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [3105(1)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a Michigan no-fault automobile insurance policy issued by defendant Citizens Insurance Company provided liability coverage to plaintiff Ryder Truck Company, in a scenario where a user of the truck sustained bodily injury as a result of a defect in the Ryder Truck vehicle. The policy issued by defendant covered liability arising out of the “ownership, maintenance or use” of a vehicle. An endorsement to the policy which extended coverage to plaintiff Ryder Truck required that the liability arise out of the “operation and use” of the truck. The Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that coverage did not exist because the vehicle was not being both operated and used when the injury occurred. The court stated that the insurance policy language “must be liberally construed and given a construction most favorable to plaintiff.... To interrupt the endorsement as defendant urges would render it unreasonable and in disharmony with the policy’s language. Moreover, defendant’s interpretation would circumvent and thwart both the statutory intent of the Michigan no-fault act, MCLA 500.3101, et seq, and the contractual intent of the insurance policy at issue.” The court went on to say that:
“In insurance cases, the concern is not with the question of culpability or why the injury occurred, but only with the nature of the injury and how it happened.... The injury must be foreseeably identifiable with the normal use, maintenance and ownership of the vehicle.... The bottom line is that through the endorsement, defendant extended Michigan no-fault coverage to plaintiff as the owner of the vehicle involved. The policy, in compliance with the Michigan no-fault act, provided coverage for bodily injury liability caused by an occurrence and ‘arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use, including loading and unloading of an automobile.’ There is no dispute that [the injured person] fell during the process of unloading and/or exiting the truck. The specific reasons for his fall are irrelevant to the issue of whether defendant has a duty to defend: it does. Similarly, defendant will have an obligation to indemnify plaintiff Ryder for bodily injury damages if plaintiff is determined to be negligent.... We are aware of no Michigan law, case or statutory, nor has defendant cited any, that limits the extent of no-fault coverage provided to owners to situations only involving potential vicarious liability or only for certain types of torts. Indeed, any attempt to do so would likely violate the no-fault statutory scheme, and in this case, the express language of the contract. Thus, interpreting the language of the endorsement at issue so as to preclude coverage for bodily injury caused by an occurrence arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use, including unloading of any automobile constitutes an impermissible contravention of both the no-fault act and the terms of defendant’s policy.... An injury that occurs while exiting and/or unloading the rear of a vehicle, and here one that was designed for carrying cargo, is ‘foreseeably identifiable’ with the normal use, maintenance, and ownership of the vehicle such that there was a sufficient causal connection from which a duty to defend arose. Moreover, the general conclusion that exiting and/or unloading a vehicle is a normal part of its ‘use’ has long been supported by case law.”
Accordingly, the court reversed the lower court and held that defendant’s policy provided liability coverage to plaintiff.
