Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.


Parcell v Auto-Owners Insurance Company; (COA-UNP, 6/10/2004, RB #2464)


Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 246134; Unpublished    
Judges Hoekstra, O’Connell and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion

Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [3105(1)] 
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Transportational Function Requirement [3105(1)] 

Not applicable 

In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s injuries did not arise out of her “ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle” as required by §3105(1) of the No-Fault Act, where it was undisputed that she was attacked with a knife and permanently injured after giving a ride to a stranded motorist.

The Court of Appeals held that to be compensable under the No-Fault Act, the injuries must be caused by the inherent nature of the use of a motor vehicle. The injury must be closely associated with the transportational function of a vehicle. Injuries inflicted by a car jacker are personal and the presence of the motor vehicle is only incidental. Therefore, plaintiff’s injuries are not compensable under §3105 because they are not sufficiently related to the use of the motor vehicle.

Lansing car accident lawyer Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit

Copyright © 2022 Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)