United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Case #11-10737
Hon. Avern Cohn
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Opinion Not Available 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Personal Protection Insurance (PIP) Benefits Entitlement [§3105]
Exclusion for Parked Vehicles Covered by Workers’ Comp [§3106(2)]
Tort Liability for Noneconomic and Economic Loss [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Workers Disability Compensation Act (MCL 418.1, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion involving the whether an injured long-haul truck driver was entitled to no-fault benefits under MCL 500.3106(2), Federal Judge Avern Cohn held the truck driver was excluded from recovering PIP benefits because his injuries did not “arise out of” using the truck as a motor vehicle and, therefore, the No-Fault Act was inapplicable. According to Judge Cohn, the truck driver’s injuries occurred during the course of his employment while he was “entering into or alighting from” his parked truck and, therefore, workers’ compensation benefits were triggered.
In so holding, Judge Cohn said the workers’ compensation insurance carrier could enforce a lien against a settlement the truck driver had obtained in a separate negligence action. The Workers’ Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) controlled this case, and not the No-Fault Act, thereby allowing the workers’ comp carrier to attach a lien to the truck driver’s settlement, Judge Cohn explained. In so ruling, the judge emphasized that plaintiff could have sought both economic and non-economic benefits in his separate negligence lawsuit.
Plaintiff fell to the ground while exiting his parked semi-truck, due to a missing step on the truck’s cab. AIG Insurance, the workers’ comp carrier, paid benefits to plaintiff. Plaintiff also sued defendant, Ryder Truck Rental, for negligence and that case settled for $320,000. AIG then placed a lien on the settlement proceeds in order to recover the workers’ comp benefits it had paid. Plaintiff moved to extinguish AIG’s lien, claiming it did not attach to the entire settlement amount because his recovery included only non-economic damages pursuant to the No-Fault Act. AIG moved to enforce its workers’ comp lien, asserting the No-Fault Act did not apply, the settlement included both economic and non-economic damages, and therefore its lien attached to the entire settlement amount.
In his ruling, Judge Cohn found the No-Fault Act totally inapplicable to plaintiff’s claim:
“This case falls within the ambit of Mich. Comp. Laws §500.3106(2). Trueblood was injured while ‘entering or alighting from’ a parked motor vehicle, and he obtained workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries. He was not injured ‘immediately after the vehicle became disabled.’ … The truck was not being used as a motor vehicle. Accordingly, the no-fault act has no application to this case because, under Mich. Comp. Laws §500.3106(2), Trueblood was not entitled to no-fault benefits. Holding otherwise would allow Trueblood to obtain both workers’ compensation and no-fault benefits in contravention of the Legislature’s intent.”
Regarding AIG being reimbursed for the workers’ comp benefits it paid, Judge Cohn explained:
“Because Trueblood’s claim was not governed by the no-fault act, the provisions in the WDCA apply in determining what amount, if any, AIG is entitled to attach as a lien on Trueblood’s settlement amount. … Here, AIG paid Trueblood workers’ compensation benefits. Trueblood then sued a third party in a negligence claim for the same injuries. Thus, pursuant to the WDCA, AIG is entitled to reimbursement for the benefits it paid Trueblood, after Trueblood’s expenses are deducted.”
Judge Cohn rejected plaintiff’s claim that AIG was not permitted to enforce a lien on the settlement proceeds, saying:
“Trueblood’s reliance on Great American Insurance Company v Queen, 410 Mich 73 … (1980), for its position that AIG is not entitled to attach a lien on the settlement proceeds is misplaced. In Queen, the Michigan Supreme Court held that payment of economic benefits by a workers’ compensation insurer, of which the injured employee would also be entitled to under the no-fault act, are not reimbursable by the workers’ compensation insurer. … In other words, if the workers’ compensation insurer acts as the primary insurer where the insured also has the choice of seeking no-fault benefits, the workers’ compensation insurer’s payment of benefits is in essence a substitution for no-fault benefits.”
In this case, plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits because his fall from the truck came within an exception to the No-Fault Act, Judge Cohn emphasized. He said:
“While it is true that ‘[w]here an employee is injured in a motor vehicle accident in the course of his employment, workers’ compensation benefits substitute for automobile no-fault benefits to the extent that the workers’ compensation benefits duplicate the no-fault benefits otherwise payable to the employee,’ … that is not the case here. Because the no-fault act does not apply to Trueblood’s claim, the workers’ compensation benefits paid to him were not duplicate benefits that he was otherwise entitled to. Therefore, Queen is not helpful to Trueblood’s position.”
Judge Cohn concluded:
“In sum, Trueblood’s injuries are not compensable under the no-fault act. As such, it is the WDCA that applies, and, under the WDCA, AIG’s lien attaches to the settlement proceeds. In other words, in his case against Ryder, Trueblood could have sought both economic and non-economic benefits. That his complaint was phrased in a way that evidences his belief that the no-fault act applies does not change this result. The Michigan Legislature clearly intended that the no-fault act not apply to this circumstance.”
Therefore, Judge Cohn held that AIG could enforce its workers’ comp lien, ordering AIG to submit an order detailing the amount of the lien and how it calculated the total amount.
