Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 100387; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Mahe,r and Brennan; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Occupying [§3106(1)(c)]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
Determination of Involved Vehicle [§3113]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed denial of defendant's motion for summary disposition as to plaintiff’s claim for no-fault insurance benefits in a case where plaintiff was injured while sitting on the bed of his pick-up truck which was parked and awaiting repairs. The pick-up truck was uninsured, and defendant claimed that the provisions of § 3113(b) precluded coverage for PIP benefits.
Plaintiff was sitting on the bed of his pick-up truck on a Detroit street where it was parked waiting for transmission repairs. Another automobile struck a third vehicle which was parked behind plaintiffs truck, pushing it into the truck and injuring plaintiff. The truck was not insured at the time of the accident, but plaintiff owned another vehicle which was insured by defendant. When plaintiff claimed no-fault insurance benefits, defendant denied on the basis of §3113(b), asserting that plaintiff was not entitled to benefits because he was an "occupant of an uninsured vehicle that was involved in the accident."
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's finding that plaintiff was not an "occupant" of the truck, within the meaning of §3106(1)(c), which section provides that a vehicle which is parked is not considered to be "involved in the accident" unless the situation falls within one of the parked vehicle exceptions. The exception upon which plaintiff relied was §3106(l)(c) which states that a parked vehicle is involved in the accident where the injury was sustained by a person "while occupying" the vehicle. In reversing the trial court's finding that plaintiff was not an occupant, the Court of Appeals noted that it had previously interpreted the situation of "occupying" a motor vehicle rather broadly. A person need not be seated in the passenger area of a motor vehicle to be considered an occupant under §3106(l)(c). Plaintiff was injured while sitting in the back of a pick-up truck which was parked on the street waiting transmission repairs. That activity is identifiable with the use of the truck as a motor vehicle. Although parked, the truck was not like any other roadside stationary object as far as plaintiff was concerned. Therefore, since the truck was uninsured, plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits from defendant pursuant to §3113(b) of the Act.
