Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 44711; Unpublished
Judges Maher, MacKenzie, and Piercey; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Causal Connection Requirement [§3106]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In a unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff who sustained serious burns when a Coleman heater exploded while he was occupying a parked pickup camper was not entitled to no-fault benefits as a matter of law. Accordingly, a lower court summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of no-fault coverage was reversed and the case remanded for new trial.
The injury in this case occurred when the pickup camper was parked well off the road at a campsite in a state recreation area. The engine of the pickup was off. The plaintiff was inside the pickup preparing to retire for the evening. Plaintiff’s friends were outside of the vehicle preparing to light a Coleman heater which was situated on the tailgate. In so doing, the heater exploded causing plaintiff to sustain serious burns. Plaintiff contended that he was entitled to no-fault benefits under §3106(c) on the basis that he sustained accidental bodily injury while occupying a parked vehicle.
In reversing the lower court, the Court of Appeals held that the focus was whether or not the plaintiff’s injuries "arose out of the use of this parked vehicle as a motor vehicle." The Court held that the injuries did not so arise and noted that the "plaintiff had abandoned the use of the vehicle as a motor vehicle and was preparing to use it as a sleeping facility."
The Court also quoted with approval from the case of Shinabarger v Citizens (item number 264) and held that the plaintiff must show a causal connection between the use of the motor vehicle and the injury. The Court acknowledged that the holding in the case of McPherson v Auto-Owners (item number 264) was sufficiently broad enough to justify payment of no-fault benefits in this situation. However, the Court felt that McPherson should be confined to its facts. In stating that the Shinabarger decision was a more well-reasoned approach, the Court commented, "Where plaintiff’s injuries are entirely the result of an independent cause in no way related to the use of the vehicle, the fact that the vehicle is the site of the injury will not suffice to bring it within the policy coverage. . . ."
