Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 70270; Published
Judges Wahls, Bronson, and Kaufman; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 135 Mich App 522; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Physical Contact Requirement
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion does not actually deal with a no-fault question but rather involves a claim for uninsured motorist benefits. The claim involved a nine year old boy who was struck by an uninsured automobile while standing next to an ice cream truck. At no point in time had the young boy gone into the ice cream truck or stood on any portion of it He was not in contact with the ice cream truck at the time he was struck by the uninsured vehicle. In order to claim uninsured motorist benefits from the insurer of the ice cream truck, the policy required that the injury be sustained while the injured person was "in, upon, entering or alighting from" the ice cream truck. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Analogizing to cases which have interpreted the phrase "occupying, entering into or alighting from the vehicle" in §3106(c), the Court of Appeals noted that all extensions of the definition of "occupancy" to persons injured while outside a vehicle involved persons who had at least physically occupied the vehicle immediately prior to the accident At no such time was there immediate prior occupancy in this case, nor was there any physical contact with the ice cream truck at the time of impact Therefore, uninsured motorist benefits were not available.
