Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #258608; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Wilder, and Zahra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Transportational Function Requirement [3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant on plaintiff’s claim for no fault benefits where the vehicle was being used as an advertising display, rather than a vehicle, when the accident occurred. The plaintiff in this case was injured at a car dealership when he was hit in the head by a falling tailgate. In finding plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits, the Court of Appeals determined that this case is controlled by the holding in McKenzie v Auto Club Ins Ass’n [RB #1995]. In McKenzie, the Michigan Supreme Court held that for an injury to arise out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, the injury must be closely related to the transportational function of the vehicle when the vehicle is engaged in that function. In this case, the vehicle was not being used for its transportational purposes when plaintiff was injured, rather, it was being used as an advertising display. In this regard, the court stated:
“The McKenzie Court identified several uses of a vehicle that do not qualify as use of a vehicle as a motor vehicle because they are unrelated to the vehicle’s transportational function. One such use is ‘as an advertising display (such as at a car dealership) . . . .’ In the present case, the vehicle at issue was being used as an advertising display at a dealership and the injury occurred in the course of its use as such – a salesman was demonstrating the features of the vehicle to encourage plaintiff to purchase it when plaintiff was hit in the head by a falling tailgate. Because plaintiff’s injury did not arise out of the use of the parked vehicle as a motor vehicle, the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition.”
