*1 1981]
GAJEWSKI v AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY 13, 1981, Docket No. 52220. Submitted October at Detroit. Decided appeal applied December 1981. Leave to for. Gajewski brought against Michael an action Auto-Owners Insur- Company seeking ance no-fault benefits for which he sustained when an which was attached to the by persons unknown, of his motor vehicle detonated as plaintiff he turned on subsequently switch. The summary judgment, granted, moved for which motion was Court, Wayne Circuit Charles J. The defendant appeals. Held: 1. The trial court erred in motion. failed to demonstrate a sufficient causal connec- tion between his use of the motor vehicle and the which he sustained. identifiable with the normal Summary judgment 2. is entered in favor of the defendant. J., dissented. He would hold that a direct causal relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the plaintiff’s injuries was established because the of an ignition key is identifiable with the normal use of the vehicle. He would affirm.
Opinion of the Court — — 1. Insurance No-Fault Insurance Automobiles. no-fault insurer is liable to bodily injury arising out of and which is identifiable with ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a vehicle where the establishes a causal incidental, fortuitous, connection which is more than or "but References for Points in Headnotes 2d, 7 Am Jur [1-3] Automobile Insurance 351. § Validity plans. and construction of "no-fault” automobile insurance 42 ALR3d 229.
[2, 2d, 7 Am Jur Automobile Insurance 203. Opinion of the Court (MCL a motor vehicle and for” 24.13105[1]). 500.3105[1];MSA *2 sives. person bodily injury of as result of detonation incurs a who by ignition to the mechanism an device attached turning ignition key persons by in a unknown of relationship a not sufficient vehicle does demonstrate of and the sustained the use the motor vehicle between benefits; not such to no-fault so as to be entitled foreseeably normal mainte- with the identifiable nance, of sives. in a an motor vehicle is of provide to direct of the vehicle so as a identiñable with the use the vehicle and .explosive device a the detonation of an sustained as result of unknown, ignition by persons enti- mechanism attached to tling injured so to no-fault beneñts. an insured plaintiff. Rowe, Jones, P.C., for Talon Joselyn, Grinnan, Rowe, Jamieson, Callahan Hayes, P.C., for defendant. P.J., and J. H. Gillis
Before: N. JJ. appeals right Curiam. Defendant as Per the trial court’s order plaintiff. July plain- 1976, when On got
tiff
into his vehicle and turned the
key,
an
device which had been attached
persons
mechanism
unknown
injuring plaintiff.
severely
detonated,
The trial
plaintiff’s injury
as
occurred
court concluded that
operation
he
and that
result of his
the vehicle
Opinion
the Court
therefore
entitled to benefits as a matter of
pursuant
law
3105 of the no-fault act.
to
24.13105(1)
500.3105(1);
provides:
MCL
MSA
personal protection
"Under
insurance an insurer
bodily injury arising
liable to
ownership, operation,
out of the
maintenance or use of
* *
a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle
*.”
construing
phrase "arising
Cases
out of the
* * *
uniformly require
use of a motor vehicle”
establish a causal connec
tion
the use of the motor vehicle and the
Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins
App 213, 222;
lv den
Such causal
incidental,
connection must be more than
fortu
itous, or
for”. The
must be
"but
*3
with the normal
and
identifiable
ownership
Kangas
Casualty
of the vehicle.
v Aetna
App
Surety Co,
1, 17;
64 Mich
235
42
NW2d
(1975). While the statute does not necessitate a
finding
directly
injury
that
the
was caused
and
proximately by
vehicle,
of the
causation
use
something distinctly
cannot be extended to
remote.
sufficiency
depends
The
of the causal connection
on the facts of each case. Williams v Citizens
App
America,
Mutual Ins Co of
94 Mich
764-
765;
These have been several panels deny recovery of this Court to of no-fault benefits to the victim of an assault which occurred Associates, in or near an See A & automobile. G Michigan App Co, 293; Inc v Mutual Ins 110 Mich (1981),Higginbotham, supra, 799 314 NW2d v Automobile Club of Hamka
Michigan, App 644; 89 Mich (1979), O’Key 280 512 Mutual NW2d v State Farm App 59 62 App 526; 280 NW2d Co, 89 Mich Automobile Kangas, supra. and insufficient there was an believe We plaintiff’s of the vehicle use injuries. device that the The fact and his plaintiff’s some rather than vehicle in set was though fortuity. Even a mere other location plaintiff’s key detonated act of explosion, than the rather instrumentality automobile, injury. the true maintenance, with identifiable ownership Higgin Kangas, supra, vehicle. of the supra. botham, favor order of summary judgment is reversed, and defendant.
entered (dissenting). agree trial with I relation- there was a sufficient court that plaintiff’s ship and his of the vehicle use distinguishable injuries. the the This case because were denied cases in which benefits presence at the time of in the vehicle e.g., fortuity. See, Detroit was a mere Inter-Ins Automobile App in- 213; 95 Mich trapped curb, forced her sured’s husband times with car, her several her in her and shot revolver), Surety Kangas Casualty v Aetna (1975) (passengers 1; NW2d *4 pedestrian), the insured’s vehicle assaulted O’Key Ins Farm Mutual Automobile v State insured 526; 280 NW2d sitting she was an assailant while was shot vehicle). have cases, the could In these her Co by Cynar, using resulted whether the cle or not. The vehicle was more than the vehi-
merely site of the Under the case, facts in this must be identified with starting the normal manner of a vehicle. There was a direct causal between the use of plaintiff’s injuries. the motor vehicle and I would affirm.