Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 113013; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Reilly, and R.B. Burns; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Parked Vehicles Covered by Workers Comp [§3106(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Workers Disability Compensation Act (MCL 418.1, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld a trial court summary disposition in favor of the defendant, and denying no-fault benefits to plaintiff who was injured while in the process of "loading" tanks on his truck.
Plaintiff’s job involved filling air compressors with diesel fuel while the tanks remain on the truck. The tanks are secured with a rope. After filling the tanks, plaintiff got off the truck, replaced the hose and shut off the pumps. He then returned to the truck to check the rope securing the tanks. As he got off the truck, his feet slipped, and plaintiff suffered leg and back injuries. There was no dispute that he received workers' compensation benefits for his injuries.
Plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits was denied by the Court of Appeals based upon a finding that he was engaged in the act of loading or unloading at the time of the accident, and, therefore, pursuant to §3106(2) was precluded from receiving no-fault benefits.
The court held that the issue was whether the act being performed was more properly considered as part of the delivery process or part of the loading/unloading process. Citing the cases of Raymond v Commercial Carriers, Inc, 173 Mich App 290 (1988) and Crawford v Allstate Insurance Company, 160 Mich App 182 (1987), the court held that the process of loading entailed more than putting freight onto the trailer. It involved a variety of processes, and necessarily included the requirements of securing the load. Therefore, plaintiff’s act of insuring that the rope properly secured the fuel tanks in place was a part of the ongoing process of loading.
The court held that it was impossible for plaintiff’s claim to be supported at trial because of a deficiency which could not be overcome, and therefore, grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant was appropriate.
