Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #321974; Unpublished
Judges K.F. Kelly, Cavanagh, and Saad; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Workers’ Disability Compensation Act [MCL 418.1, et seq.]
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits for injuries he sustained while operating a dump truck, because he was an employee under the test set forth in Auto-Owners Ins Co v All Star Lawn Specialists Plus, Inc. Therefore, the court held that plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation benefits.
The plaintiff in this case was injured while operating a dump truck owned by Losey’s Lawn & Landscape, Inc. Following his accident, plaintiff attempted to collect PIP benefits from State Farm, which denied his claim, asserting he was an employee of the landscape company. Plaintiff argued that he was an independent contractor. The trial court granted State Farm’s motion for summary disposition, finding that plaintiff was an employee. On appeal, plaintiff argued he was an independent contractor and, therefore, State Farm was obligated to pay benefits.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with plaintiff, concluding he was an employee under Auto-Owners, 303 Mich App 288 (2013). In so holding, the court looked to the definition of “employee” in the Workers Disability Compensation Act (MCL 418.161(1)(n)) and said:
“Plaintiff testified that he was working on a landscaping job for Losey’s when he was injured. … Plaintiff was driving Losey’s dump truck, and was on his way to pick up limestone to take to the job site, when the front driver’s side tire blew causing the truck to go into a ditch. Thus, according to his own testimony, plaintiff was performing service in the course of Losey’s landscaping business at the time of his injury. In relation to this landscaping service, plaintiff did not maintain a separate business, i.e., he did not have his own landscaping business; plaintiff did not hold himself out to and render landscaping services to the public; and plaintiff was not an employer subject to the WDCA. Thus, plaintiff was not divested of employee status. That is, plaintiff did not ‘fail to satisfy any one of the three criteria’ set forth in MCL 418.161(1)(n). … Accordingly, at the time of his injury, plaintiff was Losey’s employee and not an independent contractor.”
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s remedy was workers’ compensation benefits and summary disposition was properly granted for State Farm.
