Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 209325; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Hood, and Murphy; 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In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a person standing outside of a vehicle and leaning with his upper body inside the vehicle, is not an “occupant” for purposes of priority of payment of no-fault benefits under section 3114(4), and therefore, benefits were payable by the operator of the vehicle "involved in the accident” under 3115(1).
Plaintiff was operating his girlfriend's Blazer, intending to drop off his son at school. The Blazer was insured by State Farm. After parking the Blazer, plaintiff turned off the ignition, walked around to the passenger side of the vehicle, and leaned over to unfasten his son's seat belt. A portion of his upper body was inside the vehicle, but plaintiff’s feet remained on the ground. As he began to straighten up, the Blazer was struck from behind by another vehicle insured by Auto Club Insurance Association. No-fault benefits were paid by State Farm, which then sought reimbursement from ACIA.
The Court of Appeals held first that plaintiff was indeed entitled to no-fault benefits because his injury arose out of the use of a motor vehicle "as a motor vehicle” under 3105(1). In this case, the court held that the injury was "closely related to the transportational function of automobiles" as required in McKenzie v ACIA, 458 Mich 214 (1998) (Item No. 1995).
Addressing the priority issue regarding which of the two insurance companies was obligated to pay, the court held that the question turned on whether or not plaintiff was an "occupant" of a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 3114(4), which provides that the injured party must seek benefits from the insurance company covering the owner, registrant or operator of the vehicle that the injured party occupied at the time of the accident.
In this case, the court held that a person standing outside of a vehicle is generally not deemed an occupant of the vehicle. Here, there is no question that plaintiff’s feet were on the ground at the time of the impact. The fact that some portion of his upper body was leaning inside the Blazer does not transform him into an occupant of the vehicle. Since plaintiff was not an occupant of the vehicle at the time of impact, the priority rule of section 3115 provides that coverage is to be paid by ACIA as the insurer of the vehicle “involved in an accident.”
