Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 92916; Unpublished
Judges Maher, Sawyer, and Tahvonen; Unanimous
Michigan Official Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Parked Vehicles Covered by Workers Comp [§3106(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Tahvonen, the Court denied no-fault benefits pursuant to §3106(2) to a plaintiff who was insured in the course of his employment. Plaintiff was employed as a body man in an automobile dealership. Plaintiff was replacing a bumper on a customer's car when the jack gave way causing the car to fall injuring plaintiff. It was undisputed that plaintiff’s claim occurred during the course of his employment while plaintiff was doing mechanical work on his vehicle. Plaintiff argued that he was not precluded from recovering benefits by §3106(2) for the reason that he was claiming benefits under §3106(l)(a), and thus contending that the vehicle was "unreasonably parked" at the time of the accident. Plaintiff argued that §3106(l)(b) and (c) were prefaced with the phrase "except as provided in subsection (2)." Plaintiff argued that §3106(1 )(a) does not have such a prefatory phrase, and, therefore, plaintiff argued that cases governed by this subsection are not subject to the disqualification provisions of subsection (2).
The Court of Appeals rejected this argument on the basis of the legislative history of §3106(2). The Court noted that this section was added in order to exclude no-fault coverage in parked vehicle cases that are covered by workers' compensation. The omission of the prefatory phrase in subsection (l)(a) is best explained by the fact that claims under that subsection usually have no likely connection with work-related injury.
The Court also noted that several previous Court of Appeals decisions have broadly interpreted the exclusionary language of §3106(2) so as to effectuate the legislative intent. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim was properly barred.
