Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 173391; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, McDonald, and Kolenda; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; 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In this unpublished per curiam Opinion in a no-fault first-party case, the Court of Appeals considered the issue of whether a motor vehicle is involved in an accident so as to trigger coverage where the plaintiff lost control of his motorcycle when trying to avoid a pickup truck stopped on the roadway ahead of him.
The plaintiff was riding his motorcycle following a pickup truck owned by the City of Sterling Heights. The driver of the pickup truck was forced to make an unexpected stop on the roadway. At that moment, plaintiff was looking down at his speedometer and failed to see that the pickup truck in front of him had stopped. When he looked up, plaintiff braked hard to avoid the pickup truck and lost control of his motorcycle. The motorcycle fell on its side and plaintiff was injured. The defendant insurer argued that a motor vehicle, i.e., pickup truck, was not involved in the accident, because the motorcycle did not come in contact with it, and, therefore, no-fault benefits-were not payable.
The court held that the standard for whether a motor vehicle is involved in an accident as follows:
"The test for determining whether a motor vehicle was involved in a motor vehicle accident, is whether there was a causal connection between the injuries sustained and the ownership, maintenance, or use of the automobile, and which causal connection is more than incidental, fortuitous or but for. The injury must be foreseeably identifiable with the normal use, maintenance and ownership of the motor vehicle.
* * *
Further, it is not necessary that the motorcycle actually touch or come in contact with the motor vehicle involved, so long as the necessary causal connection is established."
Citing Bradley v DAIIE (Item No. 684), Bromley v Citizens Insurance Company of America (Item No. 495), and Greater Flint HMO v Allstate Insurance Company (Item No. 1189), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding here that there was a causal nexus between the injuries sustained by plaintiff and the use of the pickup truck, where plaintiff had to apply his brakes when he saw the pickup truck in front of him stopping. Plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to no-fault first-party coverage.
