Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 219109; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Murphy, and Griffin, unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [3106(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals denied no-fault benefits and uninsured motorist benefits to a plaintiff who sustained injury as a result of being struck by shrapnel from an explosion of fireworks launched from an uninsured flatbed trailer. In denying plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits, the court held that the flatbed trailer was not being used as a motor vehicle at the time of the accident, but rather “was being used solely to launch fireworks.” The court stated that “This use as a stationary launching pad is too attenuated from the trailer’s character as a motor vehicle to qualify as an exception to the parked vehicle exclusion [section 3106].”
The court also rejected plaintiff’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits, which plaintiff brought because the flatbed trailer was uninsured. The uninsured motorist policy issued by defendant extended uninsured motorist coverage for bodily injury arising out of the use of an uninsured motor vehicle. The policy defined “uninsured motor vehicle” as a “land motor vehicle.” The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s argument that the phrase “land motor vehicle” should be defined in accordance with the definition of “motor vehicle” as that term is used in section 3101(2)(e) of the Michigan No-Fault Act. The court stated that uninsured motorist coverage is not statutorily required, and therefore, the phrase “land motor vehicle” as used in the insurance policy must be given its common and ordinary meaning. Citing earlier appellate precedent, the court held that the phrase “land motor vehicle” is simply “a vehicle with a motor that travels on land.” Because the flatbed trailer involved in this case was not motorized, it was clearly not a land motor vehicle within the common and ordinary meaning of that phrase. Therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits.
