Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 190448; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Parked Vehicles Covered by Workers Comp [§3106(2)]3
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Workers Disability Compensation Act (MCL 418.1, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the parked vehicle exclusion contained in §3106(2)(b) did not preclude the plaintiff from receiving no-fault benefits because he was alighting from his truck immediately after it had become disabled.
Plaintiff presented evidence that because hydraulic fluid had sprayed all over his windows and mirrors, he could not see out of the cab of his truck and therefore could not safely drive. The hydraulic line that burst was connected to the loading/unloading system of the truck and not its engine. Although the engine was not affected, and the vehicle could be operated, based upon the facts viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the truck was "functionally disabled" because his visibility was impaired by the hydraulic fluid. Although not clear from the court's opinion, apparently plaintiff was injured while alighting from the vehicle after it had become "disabled" due to the hydraulic fluid.
Under the parked vehicle exclusion contained in §3106(2)(b), the plaintiff is not entitled to no-fault benefits if accidental bodily injury arises out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a parked vehicle if benefits under the workers' disability compensation act are available to an employee who sustains injury in the course of his or her employment while either (a) loading, unloading or doing mechanical work on a vehicle, or (b) entering into or alighting from the vehicle unless the injury was sustained while entering into or alighting from the vehicle immediately after the vehicle became disabled.
In reversing the trial court finding that plaintiff was precluded from recovery because his injury occurred during the unloading of the truck as defined in §3106(2)(a), the Court of Appeals held that based upon the evidence presented, the provisions of section §3106(2)(b) applied and the matter was to be remanded for further proceedings.
