Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 205493; Unpublished
Judges MacKenzie, Gribbs, and Wilder; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Parked Vehicles Covered by Workers Comp [§3106(2)]
Exception for Loading / Unloading [§3106(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals interpreted the parked vehicle exclusions contained in section 3106(2) to preclude coverage for no-fault benefits in the circumstance where plaintiff was injured while washing down his cement truck following having delivered the cement.
In this case, the court found that the parked vehicle exclusion contained in section 3106(2)(a) would preclude coverage because plaintiff was engaged in acts incidental to loading or unloading his cement truck.
The facts demonstrated that plaintiff, a cement truck driver, drove his truck to a job site to deliver cement. After emptying the cement from his truck at the construction site, he drove to another location at the construction site to wash down his vehicle. In the course of washing his truck, plaintiff was injured when he slipped on a pad while climbing down from the top of the truck. Plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits and then also claimed no-fault benefits.
The court found that the complete operation of unloading the vehicle in question encompassed washing the vehicle down after the cement was deposited, because the employer required that all cement trucks be cleaned at the end of the unloading project. Washing the truck immediately after unloading the cement was necessary, or the cement would harden and the driver would be unable to load his next deposit of cement. The court found that the fact that the vehicle was moved a short distance from the unloading point in order to wash the vehicle did not alter its conclusion.
The court concluded that the plaintiff’s act of washing the truck was the final step of the unloading process, as well as preparatory to the loading and unloading of subsequent deliveries, and thus fell within the exclusion contained in section 3106(2)(a) which would preclude no-fault benefits for accidental bodily injuries arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a parked vehicle where workers' compensation benefits are available to the employee who sustains injury while loading, unloading or doing mechanical work on a vehicle.
The court noted that to effectuate the legislative intent of the exclusion, so as to eliminate duplication of benefits for work-related injuries, except where the actual driving or operation of a vehicle is involved, has resulted in the courts interpreting the statute broadly to mean the "complete operation of loading or unloading, including acts incidental to completion of the loading or unloading process."
