David L Kull v. United Services Automobile Association
329748
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff David Kull was injured on May 23, 2014 when his wedding ring was ripped off while he slid down the side of a boat on a trailer to alight and retrieve a wrench; his finger was severely injured and later amputated.
- The boat was mounted on a trailer that Kull had towed to a lake to launch; the trailer was parked at the time of injury.
- USAA denied PIP (personal protection insurance) benefits under Michigan’s no-fault act, contending the parked-vehicle exceptions did not apply and the trailer did not cause the injury.
- Kull sued; both parties moved for summary disposition and the trial court granted USAA’s motion. Kull appealed.
- The Court of Appeals analyzed whether Kull’s conduct fit MCL 500.3106(1)(c) (alighting) and whether the injury arose out of the use of the parked trailer as a motor vehicle (Putkamer test).
- The Court concluded Kull was alighting when injured, the trailer’s transportational function had not ended, and there was a sufficient causal nexus to award PIP benefits; it reversed and remanded for entry of summary disposition for Kull.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury falls within parked-vehicle exception MCL 500.3106(1)(c) (alighting) | Kull was alighting from the boat/trailer when injured — part of the descent process | USAA: Kull was not alighting from the trailer (or not alighting at all) | Court: Kull was alighting (mid-slide, feet not on ground); 3106(1)(c) applies |
| Whether injury arose out of use of the parked vehicle as a motor vehicle | Kull’s actions were connected to the trailer’s transportational function (he had towed trailer to launch and intended to back it to water) | USAA: involvement of trailer was incidental; trailer did not cause injury | Court: transportational function had not ended; nexus is sufficiently close — not merely incidental |
| Whether mere involvement of a vehicle suffices for PIP coverage | Kull: causal connection is more than but-for; injury tied to alighting process | USAA: need more than mere involvement; citing Thornton | Court: applied Putkamer/Thornton standard and found causal link adequate |
| Whether summary disposition for USAA was appropriate | Kull: genuine issue resolved in his favor as a matter of law | USAA: facts support denial of benefits | Court: trial court erred; reversed and remanded to enter summary disposition for Kull |
Key Cases Cited
- Frazier v. Allstate Ins. Co., 490 Mich 381 (interpreting "alight" and the process-based meaning under MCL 500.3106(1)(c))
- McKenzie v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 458 Mich 214 (defining "use . . . as a motor vehicle" with emphasis on transportational function)
- Putkamer v. Transamerica Ins. Corp. of Am., 454 Mich 626 (setting the three-part test for parked-vehicle exception recovery)
- Thornton v. …, 425 Mich 643 (clarifying that mere involvement of a vehicle is insufficient; requires more than incidental causal connection)