Court of Appeals; Docket No. 306036; Unpublished;
Judges Stephens, Owens, and Murray; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [§3115(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s determination that Shaheerah English was a “non-occupant” of a motor vehicle within the meaning of MCL 500.3115 when she was injured, and therefore, coverage for her PIP benefits was established under the priority provisions of that section of the statute making Citizens responsible for payment of those benefits, as distinguished from MCL 500.3114 which addresses priority for “occupants” of vehicles.
English was injured in the process of retrieving her infant son from a Ford Windstar vehicle that she had borrowed. She entered the vehicle to retrieve her infant son who was seated inside of the car, and was in the process of stepping backward out of the car holding her son in her arms when the accident occurred. She stepped her left foot out of the Windstar and remembered the impact of the sliding door hitting her back. A car then struck the Windstar and threw her from the Windstar. After she was thrown from the vehicle, she landed on her back and the vehicle that hit the Windstar then landed on her body. She suffered significant injuries as a result of this accident.
The dispositive issue in this case was whether MCL 500.3114 or 500.3115 applied. The provisions of MCL 500.3114 are triggered by a person suffering an accidental bodily injury while an “occupant” of a vehicle. The provisions of MCL 500.3115 are triggered by suffering an accidental bodily injury while a non-occupant of a vehicle. Because neither the owner of the Windstar vehicle nor English insured the Windstar, if MCL 500.3114 applied, then Titan Insurance would be the responsible insurer pursuant to the provisions of the Assigned Claims Facility, which establishes that if “no personal protection insurance is applicable to the injury” then under MCL 500.3172, the matter is assigned to an insurance company pursuant to the procedures of the Assigned Claims Facility.
Defendant Citizens contended that the trial court erred when it determined that English was a “non-occupant” of the Windstar at the time of her accidental bodily injuries. In upholding the determination of the trial court, the Court of Appeals stated that the no-fault act does not define the word ”occupant” but the Supreme Court has explained that the “ordinary definition” of occupant should be applied in no-fault cases. Further, appellate decisions have determined that the Legislature has distinctly recognized that “entering into” and “alighting from” a vehicle are acts separate from “occupying” a vehicle. Additionally, case law has established that the primary and generally understood meaning of the term “occupant” is best summarized by the commonly used policy definition of “in or upon” the vehicle. Collectively, these cases stand for the proposition that an “occupant” is a person inside or upon a vehicle.
In the instant case, English was in the process of stepping out of the Windstar with her left leg out of the vehicle and her right leg inside the vehicle and her son in her hands. She remembered the impact of the sliding door hitting her back and then after being thrown from the vehicle, she landed on her back and then was hit by the vehicle that had hit the Windstar.
In affirming the trial court decision that English was a “non-occupant”, the Court stated that it was persuaded by the fact that English was alighting from the vehicle and that at the time of the impact between the Windstar and the vehicle that crashed into it, English was hit in the back by the sliding door. If English had actually been an “occupant” of the Windstar, the door would not have hit her in the back; rather, the door would have closed her inside the vehicle. Based on these undisputed facts, the Court concluded that English was not an “occupant” as a matter of law. Accordingly, MCL 500.3115 applies and defendant Citizens is responsible for paying English’s benefits.
