Daniel Kemp v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan
901 NW2d 534
| Mich. | 2017Background
- Daniel Kemp injured his back/calves while unloading bundled personal items (briefcase, overnight bag, thermos, lunch box) from his parked pickup after returning home.
- Kemp sued his no-fault insurer, Farm Bureau, seeking PIP benefits under the parked-vehicle exception in MCL 500.3106(1)(b).
- Farm Bureau moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10); the trial court granted the motion.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion relying on Shellenberger.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review, considered whether Kemp met the §3106(1)(b) exception, the statutory “use as a motor vehicle” (transportational function) requirement, and the causation test, and reversed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kemp’s injury fits §3106(1)(b) ("direct result" of physical contact with property being loaded/unloaded) | Kemp: he was in physical contact with property as he lowered it and the injury directly resulted from that contact; created a question of fact. | Farm Bureau: Kemp showed only temporal contact; no evidence that the property’s weight/kinetic effect caused injury. | Court: Question of fact existed whether the injury was a "direct result" of contact; summary disposition improper. |
| Whether the injury arose from "use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle" (transportational function) | Kemp: unloading upon arrival is part of the conveyance function—using the vehicle to transport objects. | Farm Bureau: removal of personal effects is merely storage/site activity; not tied to a vehicle’s normal functioning (relying on Shellenberger). | Court: As a matter of law, unloading at destination satisfies the transportational-function requirement; Shellenberger overruled to the extent inconsistent. |
| Whether the injury had the required causal relationship (more than incidental/fortuitous/but-for) | Kemp: injury was foreseeably identifiable with normal use (unloading) and thus raises a factual question on causation. | Farm Bureau: no evidence property caused injury; the twisting motion, not contact, caused harm—so causation lacking. | Court: Kemp raised a factual question whether the injury was foreseeably identifiable with normal vehicle use and whether causation was more than incidental—remanded. |
| Whether summary disposition was proper at trial | Kemp: record (including treating/expert evidence) must be viewed in his favor; summary judgment improper. | Farm Bureau: no genuine factual dispute; insurer entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | Court: Trial court erred granting summary disposition; genuine factual issues remain—case remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Putkamer v. Transamerica Ins. Corp. of America, 454 Mich 626 (framework for parked-vehicle exception analysis)
- McKenzie v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 458 Mich 214 ("transportational function" inquiry for "use as a motor vehicle")
- Thornton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 425 Mich 643 (causation test: more than incidental/fortuitous/but-for; foreseeably identifiable with normal use)
- Miller v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 411 Mich 633 (discussion of parked-vehicle exclusion policy)
- Adanalic v. Harco Nat'l Ins. Co., 309 Mich App 173 (application of §3106(1)(b) where physical contact with loaded property contributed to injury)
- Celina Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens Ins. Co., 136 Mich App 315 (recognizing property-contact causation in loading/unloading)
- Ritchie v. Federal Ins. Co., 132 Mich App 372 (weight/physical contact with property arguably directly resulting in injury)
- Shellenberger v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 182 Mich App 601 (Court of Appeals decision holding removal of personal effects not closely related to transportational function; overruled to the extent inconsistent)