Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #320936; Unpublished
Judges Stephens, Borrello, and Gadola; 2-1 (Judge Gadola dissenting); Non-unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
Link to Dissent
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to No-Fault PIP Benefits: Bodily Injury Requirement [§3105(1)]
Disqualification for Intentionally Suffered Injury [§3105(4)]
Assigned Claims Facility Processing Procedures [§3172]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam Opinion (with Judge Gadola dissenting) involving a hospital’s claim for PIP benefits after treating a person who leaped from a moving vehicle, the Court of Appeals held the trial court improperly granted summary disposition for the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, because there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the individual intended the injury within the meaning of MCL 500.3105(4).
Plaintiff Hurley Medical Center brought this action to recover payment for treatment it rendered to Craig Makela, for injuries he sustained after leaping from a moving vehicle. No-fault coverage was sought through the MACP, which denied the claim on the basis that Makela intended to injure himself under §3105(4). MACP moved for summary disposition, which the trial court granted, finding the evidence was insufficient to show that Makela’s injuries were accidental and therefore plaintiff was not entitled to benefits. On appeal, plaintiff claimed the trial court improperly granted MACP summary disposition because there was sufficient evidence to show that Makela’s injuries were accidental.
On appeal, the parties did not dispute that the act of Makela leaping from the vehicle was intentional. Rather, the question was whether Makela intended his injury.
The Court of Appeals held there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Makela had a subjective intent to cause the injury. In this regard, the court said:
“Viewing the evidence on the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff … there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to determine that Makela did not jump from the vehicle intending to injure himself but rather did so to avoid being robbed. In other words, Makela’s injuries were the unintended result of an intentional act. … MCL 500.3105(4) still considers an injury accidental where ‘a person knows that bodily injury is substantially certain to be caused by his act or omission[,]’ but ‘he acts or refrains from acting for the purpose of averting injury to … himself.’ That is just the situation here. Makela likely knew jumping from the vehicle would cause him harm but did so only to avoid possibly greater injury, in the form of robbery, to himself. As such, the record supports a genuine issue of material fact that Makela’s injuries were covered under the no-fault act and summary disposition was improper.”
Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.
In a separate dissenting opinion, Judge Gadola said the evidence that was relied upon to create a genuine issue of material fact was inadmissible hearsay.
