Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 205701; Unpublished
Judges Zahra, Saad, and Collins; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Involved Vehicle [§3115]
Determination of Involved Vehicle [§3125]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving a priority dispute between two (2) no-fault insurers, the court ruled that a pickup truck insured by defendant Auto-Owners was not "involved in the accident" within the meaning of section 3115( 1), such that Auto-Owners was required to share responsibility for PIP benefits payable to a pedestrian standing next to the pickup truck when it was struck by the vehicle insured by League General.
In this case, the pickup truck was stopped by the side of a rural road with the motor running and the headlights on. There was a party taking place at a home located on the road, and the pickup truck was one of several vehicles lining the roadway on both sides. Defendant's insured was sitting in the pickup truck conversing with two pedestrians who were standing in the roadway next to the vehicle. Plaintiff’s insured was driving down the road and, as she passed the pickup truck, she struck both pedestrians. However, plaintiff’s insured did not strike the pickup truck. The trial court found the pickup truck was "involved in the accident" for purposes of section 3115(1) because the truck was partially in the roadway, and the plaintiff’s insured testified that the truck headlights affected her vision, and one of the pedestrians was touching the pickup truck.
In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Turner v Auto Club Insurance Association [Item No. 1757], which considered the meaning of "involved in the accident" for purposes of property protection benefit claims under section 3125.
The court noted that even though Turner interpreted the phrase "involved in the accident" as used in section 3125, the court held "the phrase should be construed consistently throughout the no-fault act." In addition, the court discussed and relied upon four (4) other Court of Appeals decisions considering the meaning of whether a vehicle was "involved in the accident." Stonewall Insurance Company v Farmers Insurance Company [Item No. 669]; Bachman v Progressive Insurance Company [Item No. 735]; Brasier v Auto Club Insurance [Item No. 912]; and Michigan Mutual Insurance Company v Farm Bureau [Item No. 1366].
In concluding that the pickup truck involved in this case was "not involved in the accident," the court noted that the striking vehicle had sufficient room on the road to pass the pickup truck and the pickup truck was not blocking or moving into the path of the oncoming vehicle. The court went on to say:
"With regard to plaintiff's allegations that its insured was blinded by the headlights of the pickup truck, we decline to construe the lawful and mandatory use of headlights at night as an 'active link' contributing to the cause of the accident. See Turner, supra.... Thus we find that if the shining headlights contributed at all to the accident, such contribution was passive.... The fact that pedestrians were touching or were pushed into the pickup truck when the accident occurred is insufficient to find that the pickup was 'involved in the accident.' In sum, we conclude that [the pickup truck] was not 'involved in the accident' within the contemplation of MCLA 500.3115(1) because the pickup truck did nothing, as a motor vehicle, which actively contributed to the happening of the accident. Therefore, we deem it unnecessary to consider defendant's argument that its insured's pickup truck was parked at the time of the accident.”
