Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 124204; Unpublished
Judges Michael J. Kelly, Sullivan, and Marilyn Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Causal Connection Requirement [§3106]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reconsidered its original decision (Item No. 1084) on remand in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Winter v Automobile Club of Michigan, 433 Mich 446 (1989) (Item No. 1293), in a case involving injury caused by hot water spilling from a permanently attached cook stove in a camper.
The injury was caused in this case while plaintiff’s minor son was in a camper where water was being heated on a permanently attached cook stove inside the camper. In its original decision, the Court of Appeals held that the injury to plaintiff’s son arose out of the maintenance of the motor vehicle in question, and that he was entitled to benefits pursuant to §3105(1).
The Supreme Court remanded this case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Winter v Automobile Club, supra.
In Winter, the Supreme Court held that the injured plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits for injuries sustained when a concrete slab being lifted by a hook attached to a tow truck fell from the hook and injured plaintiffs hand. The Supreme Court interpreted the "parked vehicle" provisions of §3106 to require that the injury must directly result from actual physical contact between the injured person and the vehicle's equipment, in order to allow recovery under §3106(l)(b).
On remand, the Court of Appeals held that none of the parked vehicle exceptions of §3106 applied to this case, and specifically, the injury caused by the hot water spilling from a camper stove could not be held to have been caused by physical contact with the stove or any other equipment attached to the camper. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed its earlier decision and held plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits.
