Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 68395; Published
Judges Danhof, Brennan, and Allen; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 124 Mich App 822; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Unreasonably Parked Vehicles [§3106(1)(a)]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
Determination of Involved Vehicle [§3113]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion is the result of a remand by the Supreme Court as a result of its decision in Heard v State Farm (item number 538). This panel held that an uninsured motor vehicle which was "parked in such a way as to cause unreasonable risk of injury" as specified in §3106(l)(a) is an uninsured motor vehicle which is "involved" in an accident, thus disqualifying the owner from receiving PIP benefits under §3113.
The plaintiff in this case was driving his uninsured motor vehicle down a highway when it went off the road and ended up in a snow drift. A tow truck was called to the scene which towed plaintiff’s vehicle back onto the roadway and was in the process of towing plaintiff’s vehicle down the road. During the towing process, a problem developed and plaintiff exited his vehicle and positioned himself between his vehicle and the tow truck. While in this position, another vehicle ran into the back end of plaintiff’s uninsured vehicle, pinning plaintiff between his vehicle and the tow truck.
In its previous opinion, the Court of Appeals had applied a "but for" analysis and concluded the plaintiff’s vehicle was involved in the accident because, had plaintiff not been operating it, he never would have been injured. Given the Supreme Court's opinion in Heard v State Farm, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that its but for analysis was incorrect. However, citing Heard, the Court noted that a vehicle which satisfies the parked vehicle provisions of §3106 is more than a parked vehicle and is a vehicle which is involved in the accident as a motor vehicle. This was the situation regarding plaintiff’s uninsured vehicle and thus, plaintiff continues to be disqualified under the provisions of §3113.
[Author's Comment: In ruling that the plaintiff’s vehicle comes within §3106(a), the Court assumed that the vehicle was "parked" without given any indication as to the definition of this term. It seems curious that a vehicle which is in the process of being towed down the roadway and momentarily stops, can be considered "parked." Perhaps the Court could have reached the same result but by a different route. It could be argued that even though plaintiff’s vehicle should not be considered "parked," it could still be considered "involved" because, at the time of the accident, it was in the course of a "maintenance" operation.]
