Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #290119; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Cavanagh, and Davis; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for occupying [3106(1)(c)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court Order dismissing an uninsured motor vehicle owner’s claim for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under MCL 500.3113(b), when the accident occurred while the owner was in her vehicle, which, although parked, was involved in an accident within the meaning of MCL 500.3106(1)(c).
The plaintiff in this case was injured while occupying her parked, uninsured motor vehicle when it was hit by another vehicle. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that she was not entitled to PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b), which provides that an uninsured owner or registrant of a motor vehicle involved in an accident is not entitled to PIP benefits, and MCL 500.3106(1)(c), which provides that accidental injury arises out of the ownership or operation of a parked motor vehicle if the injury was sustained while the person was occupying the vehicle.
In affirming, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that §3106(1)(c) was inapplicable because she was using the vehicle as a shelter, citing Heard v State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co, 414 Mich 139; 153; 34 NW2d 1 (1982), in which the Supreme Court held that “a parked vehicle is deemed to be involved in the accident where the injury was sustained by a person while ‘occupying’ a vehicle.” In this case, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the vehicle was involved in the accident because the plaintiff was occupying the vehicle when the accident occurred. Therefore, because the vehicle was uninsured, she was not entitled to PIP benefits. In this regard, the court stated:
“Because plaintiff was occupying the vehicle at the time that she suffered her injuries, the vehicle was ‘involved in the accident’ within the meaning of §3113(b). Therefore, plaintiff is precluded from collecting PIP benefits under §3113 as well as assigned-claims benefits. ‘If a person is excluded from benefits under §3113 of the act, [s]he is precluded from assigned-claim benefits as well.’”
