Danny Herrera v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 329507

On Oct. 1, 2012, plaintiff (motorcyclist) was struck in the face and his windshield shattered by a straight metal object that flew into the air after two motorcycles ran over it; he suffered serious head/face injuries.
The object was recovered and photographed; witnesses did not see it fall from a vehicle, but an eyewitness rider and a trucking expert testified the piece was a metal brace from a truck canopy and likely fell from a truck shortly before impact.
Plaintiff sued State Farm for no-fault PIP benefits and uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits; State Farm moved for summary disposition arguing lack of causation/physical nexus.
The trial court denied State Farm’s C(10) motion; parties later settled damages and entered a final judgment but State Farm preserved the right to appeal the denial of summary disposition.
Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and held: summary disposition denial was erroneous as to PIP but proper as to UIM; case remanded for further proceedings consistent with that split ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to PIP benefits under MCL 500.3105(1) (causal nexus to a motor vehicle)	Herrera argued MCL 500.3114(5) and evidence that object came from a truck establish sufficient causal nexus for PIP.	State Farm argued plaintiff cannot show the motor vehicle actively contributed to the accident—only an incidental/fortuitous link.	Court: Reversed denial as to PIP — plaintiff failed to show the required causal connection under MCL 500.3105; an unknown vehicle dropping an object earlier is at most incidental/fortuitous.
Entitlement to UIM (unidentified hit-and-run) under the policy’s "strikes"/physical-contact requirement	Herrera argued the hit-and-run vehicle need not directly hit him; indirect contact (object cast off) suffices where a substantial physical nexus exists.	State Farm argued no genuine dispute that no uninsured vehicle physically struck plaintiff or his bike.	Court: Affirmed denial as to UIM — genuine issue of material fact existed that the object was cast from an unidentified truck and that a substantial physical nexus (indirect contact) could be found.

Detroit Medical Ctr. v. Progressive Mich. Ins. Co., 302 Mich. App. 392 (describing causation standard under MCL 500.3105 for no-fault PIP)
Wills v. State Farm Ins. Co., 222 Mich. App. 110 (recognizing substantial-physical-nexus test for hit-and-run UIM coverage)
Berry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 219 Mich. App. 340 (indirect contact via cast-off object can satisfy policy physical-contact requirement if substantial nexus exists)
Ricciuti v. Detroit Auto Inter-Ins. Exch., 101 Mich. App. 683 (holding an object that fell from a car days earlier did not establish requisite causal nexus for PIP)
Turner v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 448 Mich. 22 (explaining motor vehicle involvement and causation in no-fault context)
Kangas v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 64 Mich. App. 1 (formulation of more-than-incidental causation test for no-fault coverage)