Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 238715; Unpublished
Judges Meter, Talbot, and Borrello; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [3016(1)]
Exclusion for Parked Vehicles Covered by Workers Comp [3106(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits for injuries to his back, when he attempted to pull a truck driver from a vehicle after the truck driver had been electrocuted while entering the vehicle, due to contact of the vehicle with overhead electrical wires.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the parked vehicle exclusion applied and none of the exceptions allowed for recovery of benefits to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was on the property of his employer when a load of gravel was being poured over the driveway from the raised trailer of a truck operated by a contractor hired to pour the gravel. As the trailer of the truck was raised to pour the gravel, the trailer came into contact with overhead wires. The driver attempted to re-enter the truck to lower the trailer, but was fatally electrocuted upon touching the truck. An employee of the premises where the gravel was being poured, attempted to pull the driver from the truck and injured his back. He then claimed no-fault benefits from Titan Insurance Company. Titan denied coverage for PIP benefits, because the injury arose from the use of a parked vehicle, and none of the statutory exceptions under 3106(2) applied. That section provides that accidental bodily injury does not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a parked vehicle as a motor vehicle, if benefits under the Workers’ Disability Act are available to an employee who sustains the injury in the course of his or her employment while:
“(a) Loading, unloading, or doing mechanical work on a vehicle unless the injury arose from the use or operation of another vehicle. As used in this subdivision, “another vehicle” does not include a motor vehicle being loaded on, unloaded from, or secured to, as cargo or freight, a motor vehicle.”
Plaintiff argued that the words “another vehicle” indicated legislative intent to provide coverage for work-related injuries sustained from the use or operation of a vehicle which was not owned by the insured. Plaintiff contended that the accident from which the personal injuries arise need only involve a single vehicle not owned by the injured party. The Court of Appeals held that Gordon v Allstate Insurance Company, 197 Mich App 609 (1992) specifically held that the provisions of section 3106(2)(a) “necessarily implies that there will be an injury arising out of a parked vehicle and another vehicle in order for recovery to be permitted.”
The Court of Appeals held that the provisions of 3106(2)(a) with reference to the use or operation of “another vehicle” did not apply to this case, and upheld summary disposition in favor of Titan.
