Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #281293; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Servitto, and Kelly; 2-1 (Kelly concurring); per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [3106(1)]
Exclusion for Parked Vehicle Covered by Workers Comp [3106(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant Progressive Insurance Company, finding that Progressive was not liable for personal injury protection benefits in relation to the decedent’s death, where the accident occurred when a large machine fell off a stationary trailer but the trailer was not being used in its transportational function as required by MCL 500.3106(1).
The decedent in this case was killed when a large machine fell from a trailer and struck him on the head. Progressive insured the trailer and the decedent’s personal vehicle. When Progressive refused to pay PIP benefits on the decedent’s behalf, plaintiff brought this action. The trial court granted Progressive’s motion for summary disposition, finding that when the accident occurred, the decedent was engaged in the unloading of a parked vehicle and was, therefore, not entitled to benefits under §3106(2)(a).
In affirming, the Court of Appeals first noted that, as a general rule, PIP benefits are unavailable for injuries involving parked vehicles unless, “the injury arose out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of the parked motor vehicle as a motor vehicle” and “the injury had a causal relationship to the parked motor vehicle that is more than incidental, fortuitous, or but for.” In this case, the court explained, at the time of the accident, the tractor and trailer were not being used in their transportational functions; instead, they were being used as a temporary storage platform. Therefore, because the vehicle was being used as a storage facility, Progressive was not liable for benefits. In this regard, the court stated:
“Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that the motor vehicle, the tractor and trailer from which the equipment fell and killed decedent was, at most, incidentally involved in decedent’s death, and the vehicle was not engaged in its transportational function when the accident occurred. In other words, at the time of the incident that resulted in decedent’s fatal injury, the parked tractor and trailer was being used not as a motor vehicle, but instead, as a temporary storage platform. Thus, the vehicle was being used in a storage function, and not its transportational function.”
