Detroit Medical Center v. Progressive Michigan Insurance
302 Mich. App. 392
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Single-vehicle motorcycle crash: rider traveling >100 mph saw approaching headlights, braked, fishtailed, dropped bike, and was injured; motorcycle never struck the other vehicle.
- Detroit Medical Center (plaintiff) treated the rider and sued Progressive Michigan Insurance (defendant), insurer of the motorcycle owner, seeking no-fault PIP benefits.
- Trial court entered judgment for plaintiff, finding a motor vehicle was sufficiently involved to trigger MCL 500.3105(1) coverage; Progressive appealed.
- Central legal question: whether a noncontact motor vehicle that prompted the rider’s evasive reaction was sufficiently involved to make injuries arise out of the use of a motor vehicle for no-fault benefits.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and evaluated whether the causal nexus between the vehicle and injury was more than incidental or merely a “but for” connection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injuries "arose out of" use of a motor vehicle under MCL 500.3105(1) when there was no physical contact | Rider’s reaction to an approaching vehicle’s headlights caused the crash, so vehicle involvement triggered benefits | Vehicle did not physically contribute; rider’s startled overreaction was subjective and not causally connected | Reversed: no legal causal connection; injuries were incidental/"but for", not arising out of vehicle use |
| Whether a moving vehicle’s mere presence can satisfy the "involvement"/causal nexus | Presence and movement produced the evasive response sufficient for involvement | Mere movement/presence is insufficient absent objective conduct creating need to evade | Held insufficient: vehicle must actively contribute beyond mere presence or startle effect |
| Standard for "involvement" vs. "arising out of" for priority and coverage | Not separately disputed by parties here; variable standards noted | Court emphasized involvement (MCL 500.3114(5)) can be broader but still requires activity contributing to accident | Court recognized involvement standard is broader but concluded neither standard satisfied here |
| Role of fault or avoidability in assessing involvement when no collision occurred | Fault irrelevant for coverage entitlement | Fault still not considered, but in noncontact cases objective contribution by vehicle is required | Court limited Turner: fault not considered if collision, but noncontact cases require objective vehicle activity necessitating evasive action |
Key Cases Cited
- Underhill v. Safeco Ins. Co., 407 Mich 175 (Supreme Court held motorcyclist may recover when injury arises out of use of a motor vehicle)
- Turner v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 448 Mich 22 (defines "involvement" standard and requires vehicle to actively contribute; involvement broader than "arising out of")
- Bromley v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 113 Mich App 131 (vehicle that veered over center line forced motorcyclist off road — held involved)
- Greater Flint HMO v. Allstate Ins. Co., 172 Mich App 783 (sudden stop caused chain reaction leading to motorcycle collisions — vehicle involvement found)
- Kangas v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 64 Mich App 1 (requires causal connection more than incidental; injury foreseeably identifiable with normal vehicle use)
- Brasher v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 152 Mich App 544 (vehicle must do something that contributes to accident, not merely be present)
- Thornton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 425 Mich 643 (distinguishes incidental/fortuitous or "but for" causal connections from recoverable ones)
- Shinabarger v. Citizens Mut. Ins. Co., 90 Mich App 307 (describing phrases like "originated from" or "grew out of" for causal nexus)