Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 157737; Published
Judges Sawyer, Fitzgerald, and Eveland; 2-1 (with Sawyer dissenting); Opinion by Judge Fitzgerald
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 207 Mich App 320; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Entering Into or Alighting From [§3106(1)(c)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 published Opinion by Judge Fitzgerald, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of State Farm in a case interpreting the parked vehicle provisions of §3106(1)(c) which provides that accidental bodily injury does not arise out of the ownership, operation or maintenance of a parked vehicle, unless the injury was sustained by a person while occupying, entering into, or alighting from the vehicle.
In this case, the plaintiff had already entered into the vehicle, started his car, and switched on the air conditioner. He then left the vehicle, leaving the driver's side door open, walked around the car to open the front passenger door and to assist his wife in securing their grandson in a child restraint device. He also assisted his wife in entering the car and closing the passenger door. Plaintiff then walked around the rear of the car, and while approaching the driver's side door to again enter the vehicle, he stepped upon a stone or other debris, resulting in a fracture of his ankle. He was approximately one foot away from the driver's car seat at the time of the injury. He caught himself on the car and sat on the car seat after the injury.
The provisions of §3106(1) state:
"Accidental bodily injury does not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a parked vehicle as a motor vehicle unless any of the following occur:
c. the injury was sustained by a person while occupying, entering into, or alighting from the vehicle."
In reversing the trial court grant of summary disposition, the Court of Appeals held that there was a genuine issue of material fact and grant of summary disposition was error. The Court of Appeals relied upon its prior holding in Hunt v Citizens Insurance Company, 183 Mich App 660 (1990), a case where the plaintiff was. in the process of entering the motor vehicle when struck by another vehicle where he had his car keys in his hand and his left hand was on the car door. In that case, the court concluded that there was a sufficient nexus between the use of the vehicle and the injury to give rise to coverage. The Court of Appeals herein felt that the Hunt case is factually closer to the instant case, rather than the decision of King v Aetna Casualty, 118 Mich App 648 (1982). In King, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff was not entering the motor vehicle when he slipped on ice as he was reaching to unlock the car door, with his hand approximately two inches away from the car at the time of the fall.
In his brief dissent, Judge Sawyer would rely upon King, supra, as controlling, and would have affirmed summary disposition.
