Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 85688; Published
Judges MacKenzie, Cynar, and Martin; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 152 Mich App 544; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [§3115(1)]
Determination of Involved Vehicle [§3115]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous Opinion deals with the meaning of the phrase "involved in the accident" as that phrase is used in the priority provisions of §3115(1). Relying upon the previous decisions in Stonewall Insurance Group v Farmers Insurance Group (Item No. 669), and Bachman v Progressive Casualty (Item No. 736), the court held as follows:
"This court has on two occasions held on facts akin to the circumstances of this case that in order for a vehicle to be 'involved in the accident' within the meaning of §3115(1), there must be some activity, with respect to the vehicle, which somehow contributes to the happening of the accident. In the instant case, Ellis' vehicle clearly was not involved in the activity contributing to the happening of the accident. Ellis was merely stopped at the red light when one of the vehicles involved in the original collision veered and struck his vehicle. Thus, under the holdings of Stonewall and Bachman, the trial court's conclusion of law that Ellis was involved in the accident within the meaning of §3115 was erroneous."
