Wayne County Circuit Court; Docket No. 78-827-65 8-CK; Unpublished
Judge Roman S. Gribbs
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Occupying [§3106(1)(c)]
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [§3115(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In a rather unusual factual situation, Judge Gribbs, in a written opinion, held that a plaintiff who exited his automobile to push a stalled automobile when he was struck by a third automobile was not an occupant of any of the three vehicles and thus, should have his priority of benefits established by §3115 of the statute. The plaintiff in this case did not own his own automobile nor did he carry any no-fault insurance. Thus, whether or not the plaintiff was an occupant of the motor vehicle was important in determining priorities.
In rendering his decision, Judge Gribbs analyzed the treatment of the occupancy issue in Ottenwess v Hawkeye Security (item number 94); Hathcox v Liberty Mutual (item number 198); and McPherson v Auto Owners (item number 197). Based on the emerging case law, and the previous decision of the Michigan Supreme Court in Nickerson v Citizens Mutual, 393 Mich 324 (1975), it was determined that plaintiff was an occupant in those cases due to (1) his immediate prior occupancy of the insured vehicle, and (2) his suffering of an injury arising out of the use or repair of the same vehicle. These two conditions did not exist with any of these three automobiles. Thus, the plaintiff was not an occupant of any of the three vehicles.
Accordingly, priorities were determined by §3115(1)(a) and the insurance company of the vehicle which struck the plaintiff was held liable to provide no-fault benefits.
