Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 79529; Published
Judges Beasley, Gillis, and Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 146 Mich App 321; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [§3115(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion is another case dealing with the meaning of the term "occupant" for purposes of determining priority of payment obligations between no-fault insurers. The court, relying on the Supreme Court's opinion in Royal Globe v Frankenmuth (Item No. 777), held that plaintiff was not an occupant of the disabled automobile which she occupied immediately prior to her accident and thus, ordered the insurer of the striking vehicle to pay benefits. Plaintiff in this case was driving her sister's automobile on the expressway when the hood of the car popped up, blocking her vision. Plaintiff stopped the vehicle in the center line of the freeway, exited it and walked around to the front to close the hood. As she was standing outside the vehicle or possibly walking back toward the driver's door, a school bus struck the rear of her vehicle, which in turn struck plaintiff causing serious injuries.
In ruling that plaintiff was not an occupant of the disabled vehicle, the court stated, "In Royal Globe Insurance, the Supreme Court construed the term 'occupant’ as used in the no-fault act according to its primary and generally understood meaning. While the opinion leaves undecided the status of persons within and upon a motor vehicle, as well as those entering into and alighting from it, it is eminently clear that the term occupant does not include a person who has exited his or her motor vehicle and is standing outside the vehicle, several feet away from the door, when struck by another automobile."
