Wayne County Circuit Court; Docket No. 75-0601-857-NI; Unpublished
Judge Sharon Tevis Finch
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Occupying [§3106(1)(c)]
Equal Priority Situations [§3114(6)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In a lengthy written Opinion regarding a complicated set of facts, Acting Judge Finch wrestled with some complex questions regarding "occupancy,'' "parked" and "ownership, operation, maintenance or use" of a motor vehicle. In this case, the plaintiff sustained serious injuries resulting in the loss of his leg when he was pinned between two vehicles while attempting to jump a dead battery. The vehicle with the dead battery was a Buick which was parked on the correct side of the street parallel with the curb. The other vehicle was a Chevrolet which was situated nose to nose with the Buick so that battery cables could be run from the Chevrolet to the Buick. The Chevrolet engine was running. When the attempts to jump the battery failed, the plaintiff went between the two vehicles to unhook the cables. Having done that, he proceeded to walk out from between the two vehicles when the Buick was struck from the rear by a hit-and-run driver. The plaintiff did not own a motor vehicle of his own, nor was he covered by a no-fault insurance policy by virtue of being domiciled in a household with no-fault insurance. Thus, the question was which insurance company (the Buick or the Chevrolet or the Assigned Claims Facility) would be responsible for paying plaintiff’s no-fault benefits.
In analyzing the issue, Judge Finch based her decision upon the language contained in the various insurance policies involved in this case. She held as follows:
1. The Chevrolet was not parked. It had its motor running, had a person behind the wheel, and was facing the wrong way in an otherwise legal parking spot.
2. The Buick was parked. It was not being operated, the facts indicated that it was to be left where it was until some indefinite time in the future.
3. The accident arose out of the "ownership, operation, maintenance or use," of both the Chevrolet and the Buick.
4. The parking exclusion did not apply to the Chevrolet because it was not parked. The parking exclusion did not apply to the Buick because, even though the Buick was parked, plaintiff was "in or upon" the Buick at the time of the impact.
Based on the above, Judge Finch held that the insurance carriers for the Buick and the Chevrolet were equally liable to pay plaintiff no-fault benefits and they should share the liability for those benefits equally. The Assigned Claims Facility bore no liability for these benefits and, the insurance company selected by the Assigned Claims Facility was dismissed from the case.
