Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 327416; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Saad and Fort Hood; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Interpretation of Insurance Contracts
Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving a claim for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff's fson, who was struck by an uninsured vehicle while going through grocery bags in the trunk of plaintiff's friend's car, was not entitled to UM benefits because he was not "occupying" the insured vehicle at the time of his injury.
Plaintiff's son, Sean, was struck by a GMC Envoy while rummaging through grocery bags in the trunk of plaintiff's friend's Honda Civic. The Civic was insured by defendant AAA. The Envoy, driven by defendant Christopher Laster, was uninsured. Plaintiff brought this action seeking UM benefits under the AAA policy that insured the Civic. AAA moved for summary disposition, claiming Sean was not entitled to UM benefits because he was not "occupying" the Civic when he was struck by the Envoy. Plaintiff claimed, however, that Sean was leaning against the bumper and "in" the trunk sorting through groceries when he was hit, and therefore he was "occupying" the Civic within the meaning of the policy, which defined "occupying" as "in, getting into or getting out of" the vehicle. The trial court granted summary disposition to AAA, finding that Sean was not occupying the Civic and not entitled to UM benefits.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, denying plaintiff's argument that Sean was entitled to UM benefits because he was struck by an uninsured motorist while "in, getting into or getting out of" the Civic.
Plaintiff did not assert that Sean was "getting into or getting out of" the Civic. Instead, plaintiff only argued that Sean was "in" the vehicle. Looking to Sean's own testimony, the Court of Appeals rejected the assertion that Sean was "in" the vehicle at the time he was struck by the Envoy. The Court noted that, when asked where his legs were before he got hit, Sean said: "Leaning against the bumper. The back bumper."
Based on this and other testimony, the Court concluded:
"Both of Sean's feet were on the ground beside the vehicle. And although he was leaning against the bumper, his upper body, while colloquially being described as 'in the trunk,' was actually simply hovering above the trunk. Sean did not testify that any part of his body had any physical contact with any part of the interior floor or sides of the trunk. Indeed, the only things actually 'in' the vehicle were the bags of groceries. Although we would not go so far as to require, as AAA suggests, that a person's whole body be within the passenger compartment of the vehicle, the circumstances in this case are insufficient as a matter of law to find that Sean was 'in' the Honda Civic at the time it was struck by Laster's uninsured vehicle."
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was properly granted for AAA.
