Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 125708; Published
Judges Murphy, Brennan, and Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 189 Mich App 229; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to Benefits for Out of State Accidents [§3111]
Determination of Involved Vehicle [§3111]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and denied no-fault benefits to a plaintiff truck driver who was injured when the semi-tractor trailer he was driving jackknifed. The court ruled that the plaintiff truck driver was an "occupant" of the tractor, rather than the trailer, and because it was only the trailer that was insured with a Michigan no-fault policy, the truck driver was not entitled to no-fault benefits.
The accident in question occurred in Wisconsin. Section 3111 of the no-fault statute states that no-fault benefits are payable for accidents occurring outside of the state of Michigan if the injured person was "an occupant of a vehicle involved in the accident whose owner or registrant was insured under a personal protection insurance policy. . . ." The court stated that: "A tractor and trailer are considered two separate vehicles within the meaning of the No-Fault Act. It is uncontested that plaintiff was an occupant of the tractor at the time of the accident. Thus, it seems illogical that plaintiff, could have also been an occupant of the trailer which is a separate vehicle in the eyes of the statute. Plaintiff urges us to adopt a broader construction of the word 'occupant'. In a 1984 priority dispute among insurers, the Supreme Court concluded that the word 'occupant' should be given its generally understood meaning. . . . Other cases have followed a restrictive construction of the word 'occupant'. . . . In construing the term 'occupant' in accordance with other provisions of the no-fault act, we conclude that plaintiff was not an occupant of the trailer. A victim is not an occupant of a vehicle where he is standing outside it. Likewise he cannot be an occupant of one vehicle at the same moment he is seated in a different vehicle. Therefore, plaintiff is not covered under §3111."
