Genesee County Circuit Court; Docket No.85-79250-NO;
Judge Donald R. Freeman;
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: _____; 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 case, interpretation of the language of §3106(2) resulted in summary disposition in plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed while in the process of operating a forklift truck while unloading a parked motor vehicle. Plaintiff’s decedent was backing his forklift truck out of a trailer owned by Central Cartage Company when a permanently affixed storage shelf came down behind him and he backed his truck into it crushing his head between the moving vehicle and the shelf. Plaintiff alleged entitlement to no-fault insurance benefits, and defendant denied the benefits in reliance upon §3106(2). Defendant contended that the legislative intent in adopting §3106(2) was to limit the right of recovery for no-fault benefits when a parked vehicle is involved.
Section 3106(2) provides that accidental bodily injury will not be deemed to arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a parked vehicle as a motor vehicle if benefits under the Workers' Disability Compensation Act are available to an employee who sustains the injury in the course of his employment while loading, unloading or doing mechanical work on a vehicle unless the injury arose from the use or operation of another vehicle.
Plaintiff contended that although a forklift may not always be a motor vehicle (see, Apperson v Citizens Insurance Company [Item No. 691] and Ebernickel v State Farm Mutual Insurance Company [Item No. 896] it most certainly is always a "vehicle" within the commonly understood meaning of that word.
Judge Freeman, in reliance upon the decision in Pioneer Insurance v Allstate Insurance [Item No. 727] held that the terms "vehicle" and "motor vehicle" were not synonymous, and that the forklift involved was a "vehicle" within the meaning of §3106(2). Thus, the Court held that plaintiff was entitled to survivor's loss benefits.
[Author's Comment: The argument that "vehicle" as contained in §3106(2) is not synonymous with "motor vehicle” was apparently not raised or considered in the decision of Logan v Commercial Carriers (Item No. 942).]
