Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 76619; Published
Judges T. M. Burns, Shepherd and Warshawsky; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 144 Mich App 178; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Unreasonably Parked Vehicles [§3106(1)(a)]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
Determination of Involved Vehicle [§3113]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals found that plaintiff was disqualified from receiving no-fault first-party benefits under §3113(b) in that plaintiff’s uninsured motor vehicle was "involved in the accident" which caused his injury. Plaintiff was driving his uninsured automobile on the expressway when it stalled, leaving it without any electrical or mechanical power. Plaintiff pushed the car to the right shoulder of the expressway. However, two to three feet of the car extended into the traveled portion of the right lane. As plaintiff was standing in front of his car, it was struck in the rear by another vehicle, propelling it into the plaintiff and causing injury.
In finding that plaintiff’s uninsured vehicle was "involved" in the accident, the court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Heard v State Farm (Item No. 605). That case held that a parked vehicle is not involved in the accident unless one of the exceptions to the parked vehicle provisions of §3106 are applicable. In this case, §3106(l)(a) was applicable to plaintiff’s injury in that his vehicle "was parked in such a way as to cause unreasonable risk of the injury which occurred." Therefore, because one of the parked vehicle exceptions applied, plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed to be "involved" in the accident.
The court held that the issue presented in this case was a proper subject for summary judgment in light of the fact that both parties filed cross-motions and neither argued that the matter involved disputed issues of material fact The court refused to take a position on whether such benefit entitlement questions always raise issues of law as opposed to questions of fact See Autry v Allstate (Item No. 687).
