Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 58348; Published
Judges Bronson, Walsh, and Simon; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 117 Mich App 376; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
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:
The Opinion in this case preceded the Supreme Court's opinion in Heard v State Farm (item number 538) and is probably inconsistent with that opinion. Like Heard, the issue in this case was whether or not the plaintiff’s uninsured automobile was "involved" in the accident, thus disqualifying plaintiff from recovering no-fault benefits under §3113(b).
Plaintiff in this case had maneuvered the front of his uninsured vehicle up to the front of a disabled vehicle for purposes of giving the disabled motorist a battery jump. As soon as the disabled vehicle started up after being jumped, inexplicably lurched forward causing serious injuries to the plaintiff who was situated between his uninsured vehicle and the disabled vehicle.
This panel of the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff’s uninsured vehicle was "involved" in the accident, thus disqualifying plaintiff under the Act. The Court relied upon the previous opinions of the Court of Appeals in Heard v State Farm (item number 238) and Gutierrez v Dairyland (item number 454), both of which were disapproved by the Supreme Court in its opinion in Heard. The Court noted that the Gutierrez opinion had recognized that a motor vehicle can clearly be involved in the accident even though the injuries did not "arise out of" the operation, maintenance or use of that vehicle. Given the conclusion of the Court of Appeals in Heard, this panel felt plaintiff’s vehicle in the case should be viewed as more "involved" than the vehicle in Heard.
Finally, the Court held that whether or not the plaintiff was an "occupant" of the disabled vehicle at the time of the accident is immaterial because his uninsured vehicle would still be "involved" thus disqualifying him from benefits.
