Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.


Shudell v Michigan Mutual Insurance Company; (COA-UNP, 5/11/1993; RB #1613)


Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 135055; Unpublished  
Judges Gribbs, Holbrook, and Neff; Unanimous; Per Curiam  
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:  Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt   

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

Not Applicable    

In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a passenger in a taxicab who was wounded by gun fire from another vehicle after the drivers of the two vehicles argued, was not entitled to no-fault wage loss benefits under §3105(1). The court held that in this type of intentional assault, the involvement of the vehicle is not "directly related to its character as a motor vehicle." The court held the proper focus is upon the relationship between the injury and the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, not on the intent of the assailant. Here, plaintiffs injury occurred as a result of an argument with the involvement of the two vehicles being nothing more than incidental and fortuitous. The court relied upon its earlier decisions in Marzonie v Auto Club Insurance Association (Item No. 1586) and Thornton v Allstate Insurance Company (Item No. 935).  

Michigan auto accident attorney 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 © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)