Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 145677; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Michael J. Kelly, and Gribbs; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Compulsory Insurance Requirements for Owners or Registrants of Motor Vehicles Required to Be Registered [§3101(1)]
Security Requirement Applicable for Highway Use [§3101(1)]
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Loading / Unloading [§3106(1)(b)]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of plaintiff, holding that plaintiff was entitled to no-fault first-party coverage for injuries sustained while loading a car onto a flat bed trailer attached to plaintiff’s van. Plaintiff had purchased a used automobile from a third person. He and his wife then loaded the newly purchased used automobile onto a flat bed trailer attached to plaintiff’s van.
Plaintiff was injured in the loading process. Plaintiff sought no-fault first-party benefits under a policy defendant issued on the van and trailer.
The Court of Appeals held that a two part analysis is required under §3106 to determine whether coverage is available in accidents involving a parked vehicle. First, one of the exceptions to the parked vehicle exclusion must apply. Specifically, §3106(1)(b) contains two exceptions to the parked vehicle exclusion, which are as follows:
1. for injuries which are a direct result of physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle while this equipment is being used; and
2. for injuries which result from property which is lifted or lowered from the vehicle during the loading or unloading process.
Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the use of the motor vehicle. Here, plaintiff’s injuries resulted in the loading of property onto the trailer, and thus, fell within an exception to the parked vehicle exclusion. The court also found that there was a causal connection between the injury and the use of the motor vehicle as the trailer was being utilized at the time of the accident for its intended purpose, that being the hauling of cargo.
Defendant claimed that plaintiff was precluded from receiving no-fault coverage under §3113(b) of the no-fault act which excludes no-fault benefits when the owner of an uninsured vehicle is injured in an accident involving that uninsured vehicle. Defendant contended that since the used automobile being loaded onto the van was uninsured and owned by plaintiff, the exclusionary provision of §3113 operated to preclude coverage. However, the Court of Appeals held that the exclusionary provisions of §3113 apply only where the vehicle was required to carry no-fault insurance. Here, the used vehicle being loaded onto the trailer was not required to be covered with no-fault insurance since it was not being driven or moved upon a public road at the time of the accident.
