Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #319796; Unpublished
Judges Beckering, Cavanagh, and Saad; 2-1 (Judge Beckering dissenting); Non-unanimous
Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
Link to Dissent
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Loading/Unloading [§3106(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam Opinion (with Judge Beckering dissenting) involving a plaintiff who was injured while gathering items from the backseat floorboard of his parked vehicle, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was properly granted for defendant insurer, because plaintiff was not using his vehicle as a motor vehicle at the time of his injury and, therefore, the exception in MCL 500.3106(1)(b) did not apply.
After exiting his parked vehicle, plaintiff collected some personal belongings from the backseat floorboard. While doing so, plaintiff injured his calf muscle. Plaintiff received treatment from an urgent care facility and a doctor. Defendant Farm Bureau, plaintiff’s no-fault insurer, denied plaintiff’s claim for benefits. Plaintiff then filed this action against Farm Bureau, seeking coverage. Farm Bureau moved for summary disposition, claiming plaintiff was not using the motor vehicle as a motor vehicle at the time of the injury, and the parked vehicle had only an “incidental” causal relationship to the injury. The trial court granted Farm Bureau’s motion for summary disposition.
The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s claim was properly dismissed. In so holding, the court found that plaintiff’s injury was not related to the transportational function of the vehicle and, therefore, PIP benefits were unavailable. The court said:
“The ‘nexus between the injury and the use of the vehicle as a motor vehicle’ must be ‘sufficiently close’ to justify recovery of benefits. … In other words, ‘[w]hether an injury arises out of the use of a motor vehicle “as a motor vehicle”’ for purposes of MCL 500.3106 ‘turns on whether the injury is closely related to the transportational function of automobiles.’ … The fact that plaintiff’s movement in reaching for [his personal effects] occurred in the interior of the truck does not transform the incident into a motor vehicle accident for no-fault purposes.’”
The Court of Appeals pointed out that plaintiff’s injury “had nothing to do with” the transportational function of the parked vehicle. In this regard, the court concluded:
“As a matter of law, and viewing his testimony and physician’s affidavit in the light most favorable to him, plaintiff is not eligible to receive no-fault benefits under MCL 500.3106.”
Judge Beckering, in a separate dissenting opinion, said plaintiff’s injury was a direct result of “property being lifted onto or lowered from the vehicle in the loading or unloading process,” which she concluded was compensable under §3106(1)(b).
