Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 327386; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Saad and Fort Hood; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Loading/Unloading [§3106(1)(b)]
Determination of Involved Vehicle [§3115]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving no-fault insurer priority, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff's friend's parked vehicle was not "involved in the accident" that injured her son, within the meaning of the No-Fault Act. The Court held that, although plaintiff's son was struck by an uninsured vehicle while rummaging through groceries in the trunk of plaintiff's friend's car, the "loading/unloading" parked vehicle exception in MCL 500.3106(1)(b) did not apply and, as a result, plaintiff's friend's no-fault insurer was not liable for PIP benefits.
Plaintiff's son, Sean, was struck by a GMC Envoy while rifling through grocery bags in the trunk of plaintiff's friend's Honda Civic, looking for a particular food item. Because Sean did not have auto insurance of his own, pursuant to MCL 500.3115(1) he would first claim PIP benefits from the insurers of the owners/operators of the vehicles "involved in the accident." The Civic was insured by defendant AAA. The Envoy was uninsured. AAA initially paid PIP benefits to Sean, but later determined he was ineligible for coverage. Benefits were then sought through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, and defendant Citizens was appointed as the servicing insurer. A complaint was later filed to determine which insurance company had priority to pay PIP benefits. Citizens moved for summary disposition, claiming the Civic was "involved in the accident" because, pursuant to §3106(1)(b), Sean was in the process of unloading a parked vehicle when he was injured, and therefore, AAA had higher priority. However, AAA argued the parked Civic was not "involved in the accident" within the meaning of the No-Fault Act. The trial court granted AAA's motion for summary disposition, finding the Civic was not involved in the accident, and AAA was not responsible for PIP benefits.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court rejected Citizens' argument that the parked Civic was "involved in the accident" because Sean was in physical contact with property that was being unloaded from the vehicle's trunk (groceries) when he was struck by the Envoy.
In its analysis, the Court of Appeals noted that, under MCL 500.3115(1), a person injured while not occupying a vehicle claims PIP benefits from the insurers of the owners/operators of those vehicles "involved in the accident." The Court pointed out that, in this case, the Envoy was "obviously involved" but was uninsured, and as a result, it was necessary to determine whether the Civic was "involved in the accident" within the meaning of §3115(1).
The Court of Appeals further noted the Civic was parked at the time of the accident, which further complicated the issue of its involvement. According to the Court, parked vehicles generally are not considered "involved in an accident" unless one of the exceptions in MCL 500.3106(1) is met. One of the parked vehicle exceptions in §3106(1) is where "property was being lifted onto or lowered from the vehicle in the loading or unloading process."
Here, Citizens argued this "loading/unloading" exception in §3106(1)(b) applied because Sean was lifting groceries from the Civic at the time he was struck by the Envoy. Citing Adanalic v Harco Nat'l Ins Co, 309 Mich App 173 (2015), the Court of Appeals disagreed and said:
"Citizens argue[s] that the exception is applicable because Sean was unloading groceries from the trunk and was in physical contact with the groceries when he was injured. This, however, is insufficient to satisfy the provisions of MCL 500.3106(1)(b). While Sean did have physical contact with the groceries, that physical contact did not directly result in the injury. Instead, the injuries were the direct result of being struck by the GMC Envoy. Moreover, the parked AAA-insured vehicle was not in use as a motor vehicle; rather, it was like 'other stationary roadside objects that can be involved in vehicle accidents.' ... The Honda Civic was no more involved in the accident than a bench would be, had Sean been picking up a bag of groceries from that type of common stationary object. Because the requirements of MCL 500.3106(1)(b) were not met, the parked Honda Civic was not 'involved in the accident.'"
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held the trial court properly ruled the "loading/unloading" exception to the parked vehicle exclusion did not apply and, therefore, the Civic was not "involved in the accident." As a result, the Court held that AAA was not obligated to provide benefits under §3115(1) and was entitled to summary disposition.
