Ingham County Circuit Court; Unpulished
Judge Ray C. Hotchkiss
Official Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Loading / Unloading [§3106(1)(b)]
Exception for Employer Provided Vehicles [§3114(3)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
The five-page written Opinion by Ingham County Circuit Judge Ray C. Hotchkiss in this case is a continuation of the litigation summarized in items number 68 and 86. This case deals with the right of an employee to recover personal insurance protection benefits under §3106(b) of the no-fault statute where the plaintiff-employee sustained back injuries lifting loading dock skids in the course of loading a trailer which carried new automobiles. In his written opinion, Judge Hotchkiss made the following rulings:
1. Judge Hotchkiss rejected the contention of the defendant insurance companies that the loading dock skids were not "property" within the meaning of §3106(b). The Court held that the term property is not synonymous with the word cargo and that the common, generic meaning accorded "property" would certainly include the loading dock skids involved in plaintiff’s injury.
2. Judge Hotchkiss rejected the defendants' argument that the lifting and attachment of the loading dock skids was preparatory to the loading process and hence outside the scope of the statute. The Court ruled that this is an unduly restrictive reading of the statutory language and further noted that the loading dock skids are an indispensable part of the loading process. In addition, Judge Hotchkiss noted that the statute does not demand that the skids be "loaded" onto the truck trailer, but only that property be "lifted onto" the vehicle.
3. Judge Hotchkiss ruled that the previous Court of Appeals decision in Dembinski v Aetna Casualty (item number 42) did not defeat plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits in that the injuries sustained in the Dembinski case were not a direct result of contact with property being lifted into the truck but rather were the result of slipping in a water puddle. In the instant case, plaintiff sustained bodily injury because of and while lifting property in the loading process.
4. Judge Hotchkiss rejected defendants' argument that plaintiff is not entitled to no-fault benefits because his injury did not "arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle" within the meaning of §3105(1). The Court noted that by enacting §3106(b) the Legislature sought to provide a remedy for certain injuries sustained during the loading operation. Section 3105(1) of the statute should not be construed so as to render nugatory any other provisions of the act. To accept defendants' position, would circumvent a clear legislative mandate that no-fault benefits were to be provided in these fact situations.
5. Judge Hotchkiss ruled that under the facts prevented in this case, plaintiff should be deemed an "occupant" and thus receive his no-fault benefits from his employer's no-fault carrier pursuant to §3114(3) of the statute. The Court rejected defendants' arguments that the definition of occupant is limited only to those individuals who sustain injury while physically inside the vehicle. Judge Hotchkiss noted that the Michigan Supreme Court had rejected a strict "physical contact" requirement regarding the question of occupancy in the case of Nickerson v Citizens Mutual, 393 Mich 324 (1975). In addition, Judge Hotchkiss noted that in Ottenwess v Hawkeye Security (item number 94) the Court of Appeals concluded mat a driver was an "occupant" despite being outside the four walls of the vehicle. As in Ottenwess, the instant plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment while performing an activity directly related to the use of the vehicle. The accident took place after plaintiff’s "immediate prior occupant" of the vehicle. As such, plaintiff should be deemed an "occupant" of the motor vehicle for purposes of §3114(3). Accordingly, plaintiff was entitled to receive no-fault benefits from his employer's no-fault carrier.
The Court specifically reserved a ruling on the question of the workers' comp exclusive remedy issue pending Supreme Court resolution of this question in the consolidated cases of Mathis, Ottenwess and Hawkins.
