Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 185157; Published
Judges Corrigan, Cavanagh, and Griffin; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Griffin
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 215 Mich App 264; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Motor Vehicle Involvement [§3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published Opinion authored by Judge Griffin, the Court of Appeals held that no-fault first party benefits were not available to plaintiff, who was injured when struck in the right temple by an unknown object while riding as a passenger in his car. Plaintiffs physicians diagnosed the injury as a possible gunshot wound.
The defendant insurer denied coverage claiming that the injuries did not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of the motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. Plaintiff filed suit and the circuit court granted summary disposition in his favor, finding the injury arose out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, noting that the mere involvement of an automobile in an injury is not alone sufficient to invoke no-fault coverage, and instead, the injury must be directly related to the use of the automobile as a motor vehicle. Citing Thornton v Allstate Insurance Company, 422 Mich 643 (1986)(Item No. 935). The court noted there must be more than a "but for" incidental or fortuitous connection between the injuries and the use of a motor vehicle.
The Court of Appeals found that the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding was neither the instrumentality of the injury, nor was the injury caused by the inherent nature of driving an automobile. The court acknowledged that in previous opinions, coverage was found applicable where the assailant who caused an injury targeted the vehicle, rather than its occupant. However, the court in this case noted that the Michigan Supreme Court in Bourne v Farmers Insurance Exchange, 449 Mich 193 (1995) (Item No. 1780) rejected the notion that the coverage is dependent upon the intent of the assailant, i.e., whether the assailant intended to target the vehicle rather than its occupants, and, instead, the proper focus is upon the relationship between the injury and the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. Because of the Bourne opinion, the court held that its previous opinions in Saunders v DAIIE, 123 Mich App 570 (1983) (Item No.617) and Mann v DARE, 111 Mich App 637 (1981) (Item No. 463), finding coverage where the assailant intended to target the vehicle rather than the people inside, had been overruled. Accordingly, the court found summary disposition in favor of plaintiff was improper and in reversing the trial court, directed that summary disposition be entered in favor of the defendant insurer.
