Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 140828; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Michael J. Kelly, and Gribbs; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Parked Vehicles Covered by Workers Comp [§3106(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision granting summary disposition in favor of the insurance company on the issue of whether or not plaintiff was entitled to no-fault benefits in a case involving interpretation of the loading/unloading provisions of §3106(2).
Plaintiff was employed as a truck driver by Leaseway, and on the day of the injury, was hauling seats from a factory in Detroit to a factory in Pontiac. Plaintiff’s only responsibility was to drive the truck back and forth between the two plants. Other employees loaded the seats onto the truck and unloaded them. After plaintiff backed the truck up to the loading dock, it was unloaded by other employees. Plaintiff then pulled the truck forward a few feet, because the doors to the truck could not be closed while the truck was backed up against the loading dock. Plaintiff walked to the rear of the trailer, and as he attempted to swing the door shut, a gust of wind blew the door, wrenching his arm and causing neurological damage to his elbow. Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim and received benefits. Plaintiff then sought no-fault benefits which were denied on the grounds that plaintiff was completing the process of unloading the seats, and therefore, was precluded from recovery under §3106(2).
In affirming the trial court decision in favor of the insurance company, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s injury was sustained while unloading the vehicle. The provisions of §3106(2) preclude coverage where workers' compensation benefits are payable to an employee who sustains injury in the course of his or her employment while loading, unloading, or doing mechanical work on a vehicle, unless the injury arose from the use or operation of another vehicle.
The Court of Appeals, citing other decisions, including Bell v Boutell, 141 Mich App 802 (1985), held that the legislative intent of this statute was to broadly interpret the terms "loading" and "unloading" to effectuate the Legislature's intent to eliminate duplication of benefits for work-related injuries. The terms loading and unloading a parked vehicle include acts incidental to the completion of the loading or unloading process.
In this case, plaintiff, in attempting to close the doors to his truck, was performing an act incidental to the unloading process. Therefore, the trial court properly found §3106(2) of the no-fault act precluded plaintiff from receiving benefits.
