Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #316442; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Wilder, and Fort Hood; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Personal Protection Insurance (PIP) Benefits Entitlement [§3105]
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Permanently Mounted Equipment Use [§3106(1)(b)]
Exception for Entering Into or Alighting From [§3106(1)(c)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving whether plaintiff was entitled to PIP benefits after falling from a ladder while trying to fix a parked U-Haul’s rear door latch, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was ineligible for benefits because the latch and strap that were used to pull the parked U-Haul’s door were not “permanently mounted equipment” within the meaning of the parked vehicle exception in MCL 500.3106(1).
Plaintiff was helping her daughter move when the latch got stuck on the rear door of the U-Haul they were using. While standing on a ladder to try and fix the latch, plaintiff pulled on a strap attached to the door, lost her balance, and fell off the ladder. When defendant insurer denied plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits, plaintiff filed this action. The trial court granted summary disposition for plaintiff.
In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals looked to the relationship between MCL 500.3105(1) and §3106(1) pursuant to Frazier v Allstate Ins Co, 490 Mich 381 (2011), and noted that plaintiff could not recover under §3105 alone. The analysis, the court said, required a “complementary analysis” of §3106(1) because plaintiff’s injury arose out of her contact with a parked vehicle.
The Court of Appeals emphasized that the U-Haul was parked at the time of plaintiff’s fall. Thus, to determine if plaintiff was entitled to benefits, the court said that plaintiff’s injury had to meet one of the requirements in §3106(1). Under §3106(1), a plaintiff must show the injury was a “direct result of physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle, while the equipment was being operated or used.”
The Court of Appeals said the question in this case was whether the latch and strap attached to the U-Haul’s door were “permanently mounted” equipment. The court said:
“Based on our review of the record, we hold that the latch and strap were components of the rear door of the vehicle, not permanently mounted equipment. The strap was intended for use when pulling the door open or closed, and the latch was intended to secure the door in the closed position. Therefore, the latch and strap were constituent parts of the U-Haul. Additionally, it would be impracticable to drive the U-Haul with the rear door unsecured by the latch, and the rear cargo box of the U-Haul would be difficult to open and close without the strap. Further, the latch and strap are physically part of the sliding rear door, and vehicle doors are considered constituent parts.”
The Court of Appeals also rejected plaintiff’s claim that she was eligible for benefits under §3106(1)(c) because she was “entering into” the parked U-Haul when she fell off the ladder. The court said:
“Here, plaintiff was attempting to close the U-Haul door at the time she fell. There was no evidence presented that plaintiff was attempting to enter the cargo box at the time of her fall.”
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded the trial court erred by granting plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition and held that summary disposition for defendant was appropriate.
