Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 216934; Unpublished
Judges Zahra, and Hoekstra; 2-1 (with Judge White concurring in result); Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Entering Into or Alighting From [§3106(1)(c)]
Causal Connection Requirement [§3106]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam Opinion, Judge White concurring in the result only, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient proof to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether or not he was injured while "alighting from" a parked vehicle, so as to satisfy the exception contained in 3106(1 )(c) to the parked vehicle exclusion, which provides that "accidental bodily injury does not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a parked vehicle as a motor vehicle, unless ... the injury was sustained by a person while occupying, entering into, or alighting from the vehicle."
In this case, plaintiff first told a claims adjuster that he was "down and out of the truck" before he stepped on the piece of wood that caused his injuries. In a second statement to a claims adjuster for Hastings Mutual, he was unclear about whether he was in the process of alighting from the truck or already on the ground when he sustained injury. In his deposition, he was "equivocal," ultimately testifying that he had no memory of how the accident occurred.
In affirming summary disposition for the defendant, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs testimony constituted "speculating," and that the plaintiff had failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he was in the process of alighting from the vehicle.
Judge White concurred in the result only, stating that while the plaintiffs testimony was somewhat confusing, he was fairly consistent in his position that his left foot hit the wood when he was placing it on the ground for the first time. Nevertheless, Judge White would affirm on the basis that under the facts presented, the injury's causal relationship to the parked motor vehicle was only incidental and fortuitous.
