Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #309328; Unpublished
Judges M.J. Kelly, Cavanagh, and Fort Hood; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to Benefits for Out-of-State Accidents [§3111]
General/Miscellaneous [§3111]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiamOopinion, Judge Kelly concurring in the result only, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court denial of defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the issue of whether plaintiff was an occupant of a vehicle involved in an out-of-state accident where the insurance policy defined the term “occupying” as “in, on, entering, or exiting” and where the evidence established plaintiff was “on the trailer” at the time of his injuries.
Before addressing the issue of whether plaintiff was entitled to PIP benefits under the terms of the insurance policy itself, the court addressed the issue of whether plaintiff was entitled to PIP benefits under the provisions of MCL 500.3111. That section provides that PIP benefits are available for injuries suffered during an accident outside of the state if, at the time of the accident, the claimant was “an occupant of a vehicle involved in the accident whose owner or registrant was insured under a personal protection insurance policy.” In this case, the accident occurred in Indiana while plaintiff was in the act of operating the “landing gear” attached to the trailer connected to the vehicle at the time of the injury. Plaintiff’s testimony was that he had put his foot on the base of the landing gear, as he used the hand crank to stabilize himself for leverage. He alleged that he injured his back in the process of cranking the landing gear.
In determining that plaintiff was not entitled to benefits under MCL 500.3111, the court referred to Rednour v Hastings Mut Ins Co, 468 Mich 241 (2003), which held that a person must be “physically inside” a vehicle to qualify as an occupant under §3111.
However, the court held that an insurance policy may provide broader coverage than that mandated by the No-Fault Act. In this case, the insurance policy defined the term “occupying” as “in, on, entering, or exiting.” Accordingly, based upon the description of the plaintiff’s actions at the time of his injury, the court held there was a genuine issue of fact regarding whether plaintiff was on the vehicle at the time of the injury and, thus, occupying the vehicle under the terms of the insurance policy.
The court also rejected defendant’s argument that the trailer plaintiff was allegedly occupying was not covered under the insurance policy. The court stated that the insurance policy indicated that the insured vehicle includes “trailers that are connected to the vehicle.” The testimony established that the trailer was, in fact, connected to the vehicle at the time of plaintiff’s injury.
Therefore, the trial court denial of defendant’s motion for summary disposition was affirmed.
