Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 85931; Published
Judges MacKenzie, Beasley, and Simon; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 155 Mich App 300; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Parked Vehicles Covered by Workers Comp [§3106(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals denied no-fault benefits to a plaintiff who was injured in the scope of employment while engaged in the loading of a truck-trailer. Plaintiff was employed as a clerk for United Parcel Service. A significant part of plaintiff’s job was loading packages into trailers at a UPS Warehouse. She did this job approximately 10 times per day. On the day in question, plaintiff had finished stacking packages inside of a trailer and was moving toward the back of the trailer in order to exit the vehicle As she was doing this she tripped on a loose package, fell to the trailer floor and injured her knees. She received workers' compensation benefits and applied for no-fault benefits. The Court held that plaintiff was not entitled to recover no-fault benefits pursuant to §3106(2) which bars recovery of no-fault benefits in work-related injuries where the injury is sustained while loading or unloading a vehicle. The Court relied on the previous decision in Bell v F J Boutell Driveaway Company (Item No 830) and held:
"... we apply a broad definition of the term 'load' and 'unload' and hold that like acts in preparation, acts incidental to the completion of the loading or unloading process fall within the scope of subsection 3106(2). The complete operation of loading certainly encompasses walking toward the exit of a trailer once the property is aboard, as the only reason plaintiff was in the trailer in the first place was to load it. It would be logically inconsistent to conclude that while activities preparatory to loading a vehicle should be broadly considered excluded from no-fault coverage, activities immediately after the last box has been stacked should not receive the same broad consideration."
The Court distinguished the holding in Marshall v Roadway Express (Item No. 881), holding in that case that the injured person was the truck driver, not a loading clerk, and that the driver was in the process of unhitching the trailer so that he could drive off in the truck to pick up another trailer.
