Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 85892; Published
Judges Walsh, Cynar, and Kaufman; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 149 Mich app 98; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Entering Into or Alighting From [§3106(1)(c)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant on the issue of whether plaintiff’s injuries arose out of the maintenance of his motor vehicle under §3105, and the alternative theory of alighting from his automobile under §3106(c).
Plaintiff parked his vehicle in his garage and after exiting from the vehicle, attempted to close the garage door. His hand slipped and he fell to the ground fracturing his hip. Upon the refusal of his no-fault automobile insurance carrier to pay benefits arising out of this circumstance, plaintiff filed suit claiming the injuries arose out of the maintenance of his motor vehicle, and alternatively, that his injuries were caused when he was alighting from his automobile.
Plaintiff argued mat parking his automobile in his garage was a method of "maintaining" his car within the meaning of §3105 because it preserved the outer body and inner mechanics of the car from the natural elements and the threat of theft. In responding to this issue, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the parked vehicle but by the garage door, and could have occurred just as easily when plaintiff was taking out the trash or getting his lawn mower. While "maintenance" should be given a liberal construction, the Court of Appeals did not believe that the Legislature intended it to apply to activities so tangentially related to the normal repair and servicing of a vehicle as parking a car inside a garage.
Responding to the claim that plaintiff was injured while "alighting from" a parked vehicle, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff’s own affidavit established that he had physically left his vehicle and walked to the garage door before the injury occurred. The Court of Appeals concluded that when the injury occurred, the process of alighting was completed, and therefore plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits under §3106(c).
