Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 52449; Published
Judges Bashara, Kaufman, and Banks; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 107 Mich App 68; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Motor Vehicle Involvement [§3105(1)]
Nature of Survivor’s Loss Benefits [§3108(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In a unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury judgment in favor of defendant which held that survivor's loss benefits were not recoverable by the widow of a man who was killed by an armed robber while in the process of conducting his normal door-to-door produce business from his commercial truck. The Court held that under §3105(1) the death did not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. The Court applied the Kangas rule that the phrase "arising out of" requires that the injured person establish a causal connection between the use of the motor vehicle and the injury. This connection must be more than incidental or fortuitous and the injury must be foreseeably identifiable with the normal use of the motor vehicle. The Court rejected attempts of the plaintiff to distinguish this case from previous "assault cases" on the basis that the vehicle involved in the case at bar was a "commercially insured vehicle." The Court stated, "The fact that the decedent's vehicle was commercially insured is inconsequential to this issue, even though the decedent collected money which may have increased his chances of being assaulted while in his vehicle. An assault by an armed assailant upon the driver of a commercially insured vehicle, no matter what the nature of his business, is no more foreseeably identifiable with the normal use of the vehicle than an assault upon the driver of a privately insured vehicle. The vehicle itself was not connected with the assault, it was not the instrumentality of the injury and its role remained merely incidental." Therefore, summary judgment in favor of defendant was proper.
