Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 132688; Unpublished
Judges Connor, Holbrook, Jr., and McDonald; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [§3115(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals interpreted the priority provisions of §3114 and §3115 and decided that plaintiff was an "occupant" of the involved motor vehicle, thereby obligating Colonial Penn, the vehicle's insurer, to provide no-fault benefits to plaintiff.
In this case, plaintiff was a passenger in a truck which stalled. At the time of the collision, plaintiff was outside the disabled truck, with one foot on the front bumper and with both hands grasping a cross bar, while he pulled himself into the engine compartment to check the truck's carburetor. Under these facts, the court determined that the word "occupant" as set forth in the no-fault act, §3114 and §3115 is to be assigned its primary and generally understood meaning. In Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v MIC General Insurance Corp, 193 Mich App 317 (1992), a priority case, the court decided that the generally understood meaning of occupant is someone who is in or upon a vehicle. Relying upon Administrative Order 1990-6, the court felt that it was obligated to follow Farm Bureau and find that this generally understood meaning of occupant is anyone who is "in or upon" a vehicle. Therefore, because plaintiff was pulling himself into the engine compartment with one foot braced upon the truck's bumper, the court found that he was indeed an occupant of the pickup truck. Therefore, the truck's insurer was liable to pay plaintiff's no-fault benefits.
