Michigan Court of Appeals Clarifies Parked Vehicle Exclusion of No-Fault Act
In an unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that an exception applied to the parked car exclusion of the No-Fault Act to provide Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage in a case in which a stretcher overturned while attempting to load a patient into an ambulance.
In Djeljaj v American Alternative Insurance Corporation, 2023 WL 3556897, while being transferred from one medical facility to another, the Plaintiff was purportedly injured when the stretcher to which he was strapped flipped onto its side, causing his head and shoulder to strike the pavement, as the emergency medical technicians attempted to lift the stretcher into an ambulance.
In the trial court, in lieu of answering the Plaintiff’s Complaint for PIP benefits, the Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), in relevant part, arguing that the Plaintiff did not adequately brief the transportational function and causal relationship requirements for liability under the applicable parked vehicle exception. The trial court agreed, ruling in favor of the Defendant.
The No-Fault Act, at MCL 500.3105(1), provides that an insurer is liable to pay benefits for accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. However, the parked vehicle exclusion, at MCL 500.3106(1), provides that “[a]ccidental bodily injury does not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a parked vehicle as a motor vehicle.” There are three exceptions to the parked vehicle exception:
• MCL.500.3106(1)(a) provides an exception if “the vehicle was parked in such a way as to cause unreasonable risk of the bodily injury which occurred.”
• MCL 500.3106(1)(b) provides an exception if “the injury was a direct result of physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle, while the equipment was being operated or used, or property being lifted onto or lowered from the vehicle in the loading or unloading process.”
• MCL 500.3106(1)(c) provides an exception if “the injury was sustained by a person while occupying, entering into, or alighting from the vehicle.” 1
In addition to fitting one of the three exceptions, the Plaintiff must show that the injury arose out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of the parked motor vehicle as a motor vehicle and also that the injury had a causal relationship to the parked motor vehicle that is more than incidental, fortuitous or “but for.”
The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in interpreting precedent for the applicability of MCL 500.3106(1)(b) to require that the Plaintiff owned or possessed the property; be in physical contact with the property; either be lifting it from or onto the vehicle; and that he was injured due to physical contact with that property. The Court’s reasoning included rejecting the Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits because his injuries arose from contact with the ground rather than the stretcher, distinguishing a previous case involving a fall during the loading/unloading process. The Court decided that this exception applied, finding that the claimed injury was caused by the “single, unbroken and immediate course of events” of being in contact with, and indeed strapped to, the stretcher and that the evidence suggested that the injury was a direct result of physical contact with the stretcher as it was being lifted onto the ambulance in the loading process.
The Court of Appeals also found that the facts met the transportational function requirement of MCL 500.3106(1)(b) that the injury arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of the parked vehicle as a motor vehicle, citing the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Kemp v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 500 Mich 245, 258 (2017), which supported that the critical inquiry is “whether the injury is closely related to the transportational function of the motor vehicle.” In so finding, the Court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the Plaintiff’s claim failed on this element for lack of proper briefing, noting that, among other procedural issues, the Plaintiff cited case law regarding the primary purpose of vehicles being for conveyance of people or objects and that the conveyance of the stretcher to which he was attached was closely related to this transportational function. The Court also stated that case law supported that when a person is injured while entering a parked vehicle with the intention of traveling, the vehicle is being used as a motor vehicle as a matter of law and that, in this case, the Plaintiff claimed injury while the technicians were in the process of loading the stretcher to which he was strapped into the ambulance to transfer him to another medical center. Since the Plaintiff was being loaded into the ambulance for the purpose of transportation, he was “clearly using the vehicle for its transportational function.”
Finally, the Court of Appeals also found that the trial court erred in finding that the Plaintiff abandoned the required element regarding the requisite causal relationship to meet the MCL 500.3106(1)(b) exception. The Court noted that the primary purpose of an ambulance is to provide transportation to people in need of medical attention and found it axiomatic that providing such transportation would require entering the ambulance, often by way of a stretcher. The Court rejected the defense’s argument that the ambulance was only in “fortuitous proximity” of the Plaintiff’s fall, indicating that the theory might be more persuasive if the stretcher had fallen due to a mechanical failure or defect in pavement versus the undisputed evidence that the stretcher tipped due to the manner the technicians attempted to load it into the ambulance.
At the trial court level, the Plaintiff had to deal with a res judicata issue created by the fact that a provider had filed a separate case for medical expenses in which the same court granted summary disposition for the same reasons as in the subject dispositive motion. However, with the res judicata issue handled at the trial court, on appeal, without even considering exception MCL 500.3106(1)(c), the Court of Appeals found that the presented facts of a patient strapped to a stretcher, injured while being loaded into an ambulance, satisfied the elements required for the MCL 500.3106(1)(b) exception.
1 The Court of Appeals declined to address this exception since it was not properly preserved for appeal.
Joel Ashton, a partner with the law firm of Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, P.L.C., focuses his practice on insurance defense, including Michigan No-Fault claims (PIP, automobile negligence, uninsured/ underinsured motorist), as well as premises liability and general negligence. His practice also includes the defense of contract and liability claims, contract interpretation issues, subrogation claims involving automobile, fire and casualty, commercial and related coverage. Mr. Ashton maintains an AV Preeminent Rating from Martindale-Hubbell, which is the highest possible rating an attorney can achieve for both ethical standards and legal ability. He may be reached at (734) 261-2400 or jashton@cmda-law.com.
CMDA Law
Recent Posts
- Michigan House Bill 5598: Cracking Down on Fraudulent Real Estate Documents
- Attorney Corey Volmering Joins Firm’s Grand Rapids Office
- Jim Acho Named 2024 MiLW Leader in the Law
- Richards’ Article on the Benefits and Challenges of the Ladybird Deed Featured in Urban Aging News
- Jim Acho Guests on “SportsWise” with NFL Network’s Gabe Feldman to Break Down NCAA Lawsuit
Recent Comments
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- November 2021
- October 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- October 2010
- August 2010
- January 2010
- January 2009
- September 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
Categories
- 50th Anniversary
- Allan C. Vander Laan
- Appeals and Litigation
- Appeals and Litigation Articles
- Barbara M. Moore
- Business Law
- Business Law Articles
- Carol A. Smith
- Christopher G. Schultz
- Community Association & Real Estate Law Practice Group
- Community Association and Real Estate Law Articles
- Community Association Law
- Corey Volmering
- Daniel W. Ferris
- Douglas Curlew
- Education Law
- Education Law Articles
- Employment and Labor Law
- Employment and Labor Law Articles
- Estate Planning and Elder Law
- Estate Planning and Elder Law Articles
- Firm News
- Gary D. Klein
- Gerald C. Davis
- Gregory A. Roberts
- Gregory R. Grant
- Haider A. Kazim
- Insurance Defense
- Insurance Defense Articles
- Isa M. Kasoga
- Jacklyn P. Paletta
- James R. Acho
- James W. Taylor II
- Jeffrey R. Clark
- Joel Ashton
- John "Jay" Gillen
- John D Gwyn
- John M. McFarland
- Joshua J. Cervantes
- Kenneth M. Gonko
- Kevin J. Campbell
- Kimberly M. Coschino
- Kristen L. Rewa
- Latest News
- Law Enforcement Defense and Litigation Articles
- Law Enforcement Litigation and Defense
- Linda Davis Friedland
- Litigation
- Margaret A. Lourdes
- Matthew C. Wayne
- Matthew W. Cross
- Michael O. Cummings
- Michelle L. Richards
- Municipal Law
- Municipal Law Articles
- News & Events for Business Law
- News & Events for Municipal Law
- News Archive
- Norman E. Richards
- Owen J. Cummings
- Patrick R. Sturdy
- Plaintiff's Personal Injury
- Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Articles
- Presentations & Articles
- Published Articles
- Ray E. Richards II
- Real Estate Law
- Robert J. Hahn
- Robert L. Blamer
- Ronald G. Acho
- Ryan D. Miller
- Sarah L. Overton
- Shane R. Nolan
- Stanley I. Okoli
- Stephen C. Johnston
- Suzanne P. Bartos
- Timothy S. Ferrand
- Uncategorized
- Utility Law
- Utility Law Articles
Leave a Reply