Adair v. State
301 Mich. App. 547
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Auto-Owners Insurance contests coverage under multiple policies for Derry’s injuries arising from a leaf vacuum tipping incident on All Star’s truck.
- Derry was injured while performing a fall cleanup for All Star; the leaf vacuum’s attachment to the truck was unlatched, and would not have tipped if locked.
- Derry performed lawn and snow services for All Star and also did side work for neighbors, raising questions about his employee vs independent-contractor status.
- Auto-Owners sought summary disposition arguing Derry was All Star’s WDCA employee under MCL 418.161(1); the trial court denied this, finding no WDCA employee status and addressing other coverages.
- The court held Derry was not an employee under WDCA (under Amerisure’s interpretation) but found genuine factual disputes on whether Auto-Owners’ general liability and automobile policies provide coverage depending on employment status and other exclusions, and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court noted it would, if free to interpret the statute, hold Derry as an employee under WDCA and apply the corresponding exclusions, but was constrained to follow Amerisure; it remanded as to the other policy exclusions and requested a possible special panel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Derry is an employee under the WDCA §161(1)(n). | Derry was an independent contractor; he held out to the public and lacked a separate business. | Derry qualifies as an independent contractor under the statute, meeting the criteria; Amerisure interprets §161(1)(n). | Not an employee under WDCA due to Amerisure interpretation (constrained), but factual questions remain. |
| Whether Auto-Owners’ general liability policy provides coverage given Derry’s status. | General liability covers Derry’s negligence; exclusions do not apply. | Economic reality test required; status unresolved; exclusions may apply. | Reversed in part; factual questions on status require remand for determination of coverage under the general liability policy. |
| Whether the parked-vehicle exclusion in the no-fault endorsement precludes coverage. | Parked-vehicle exclusion applies; no-fault coverage denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoste v. Shanty Creek Mgt, Inc., 459 Mich. 561 (1999) (statutory interpretation and employee vs independent contractor framework under WDCA)
- Reed v. Yackell, 473 Mich. 520 (2005) (plurality on employee definition and independent-contractor exclusions)
- Amerisure Ins Cos v Time Auto Transp, Inc., 196 Mich. App. 569 (1992) (interprets §161(l)(n) and its all-three-factors requirement after Amerisure)
- Winter v. Auto Club of Mich., 433 Mich. 446 (1989) (parkedVehicle no-fault considerations)
- Powell v. Department of Corrections, 280 Mich. 699 (1937) (definition of public for purposes of WDCA/‘public’ reach)