*1 93 Mich INSURANCE FARM MUTUAL v STATE AUTOMOBILE HEARD COMPANY 1979, 15, Submitted June at No. 78-2691. Detroit. Decided Docket 15, appeal applied 1979. Leave to for. October automo- H. when he was struck William Heard was Insurance Com- Farm Automobile bile driven State gasoline pumping pany’s was insured while Heard parked in a self- automobile which was tank his uninsured unin- was no contact between Heard’s serve There station. sought Heard the insured sured automobile and automobile. personal protection under the motor vehicle benefits no-fault Farm, claiming policy that his unin- State insurance issued with the accident. State sured automobile was not connected brought payments State Heard suit. refused to make Farm summary judgment on basis that moved for Farm personal protection under the no- from was excluded his uninsured automobile was fault insurance act because Court, Steven N. The Oakland Circuit involved the accident. Andrews, J., summary judg- granted for defendant’s motion appeals. Held: ment. Plaintiff injuries, result of Plaintiffs direct 1. equipment permanently mounted on with contact automobile, ownership, injuries arising out of the mainte- are meaning of the no- within the nance use of his automobile act. fault insurance meaning was not a 2. Plaintiff act, notwithstanding outside the fact that no-fault he of his automobile. confines in the 3. Plaintiffs automobile involved accident within [1, [7] [No Reference] [4] [3] New [5] [6] What 2] New 73 Am New ance. 60 ALR3d New Topic Topic Topic constitutes a "motor vehicle” Jur Topic Service Am Jur Service Service 2d, References Service Statutes 651. Am Jur Am Jur Am § for 278, Jur 2d, 2d, 2d, Points 2d, No-Fault No-Fault No-Fault No-Fault Insurance covered Headnotes Insurance Insurance § Insurance under §§ §§ no fault insur- 20. §§ 20, 17-19. 18, 23. 19. State Farm Mutual Heard act, not- of the no-fault vehicle plaintiffs withstanding was no contact between there insured. the automobile of defendant’s automobile and act of 4. under the no-fault insurance The exclusion *2 protection persons is for whose uninsured automobile benefits penal in not nature. involved in an accident is protection under the no-fault insurance 5. Personal plaintiff, since his uninsured automo- act not available to are meaning of the no- in accident within the bile was involved the fault act. Affirmed. J., He hold that the term R. dissented. would M. act, "involved”, not used in no-fault motor vehicle should as the deny liberally Plaintiffs automo- construed so as to benefits. and, act; meaning the within the bile was not "involved” personal protection accordingly, bene- was entitled fits. would reverse. He — — — No-Fault Personal
1. Automobiles Insurance Insurance — — Parked Automobile Statutes. Protection Benefits by Bodily by injuries individual who is struck another suffered pumping gasoline process in into the while the automobile automobile, being gas parked a direct result of of his tank permanently physical equipment mounted with on contact automobile, ownership, injuries arising out of the mainte- are meaning the automobile within or use of nance Michigan provisions of the no-fault motor vehicle insurance (MCL 24.13106[b]). 500.3106[b]; act MSA — — — 2. Personal No-Fault Insurance Insurance Automobiles — — — Pedestrian Benefits Parked Automobile Protection Statutes. being another An a result of struck individual as pumping while that individual is automobile gasoline is not a tank of his automobile meaning Michigan motor no-fault vehicle of the act, notwithstanding the individual was the fact that accident occur- when the outside the confines of his automobile (MCL seq.). seq.; red et MSA 24.13101et 500.3101 — — — 3. Insurance Personal No-Fault Insurance Automobiles — — — Parked Automobile "Involved” Protection Benefits n Statutes. being pumped gasoline is "involved” is An automobile into which Mich Michigan in an accident within the no-fault injuries vehicle insurance act where to the being owner of said automobile occur as a result of said owner pumping gasoline, struck another automobile while notwithstanding the fact that there was no (MCL 500.3113[b]; between the two automobiles MSA 24.13113[b]). — — — 4. Insurance Automobiles No-Fault Insurance Personal — — — Benefits Protection Exclusions Punitive Nature Statutes. portion Michigan no-fault motor vehicle insurance act personal injury which excludes benefits under certain circum- nature, punitive penal aspect stances is not of the no- (MCL statutory fault scheme covered elsewhere in the act 500.3102, 24.13102, 500.3113[b]; 24.13113[b]). — — — 5. Insurance Automobiles No-Fault Insurance Personal Coverage — — Protection Benefits Excluded Statutes. Michigan Personal benefits under the no-fault motor vehicle insurance act are not available to an individual who is put- struck an insured automobile while that individual is *3 ting gasoline gas automobile, tank of his uninsured subject since such individual is to the "involved” uninsured (MCL 500.3113[b]; vehicle exclusion act MSA 24.13113[b]). R. M. J.
Dissent — — — 6. Insurance Automobiles No-Fault Insurance Remedial — — Nature Liberal Construction Statutes. Michigan act, being no-fault motor vehicle insurance reme- nature, construed, however, liberally dial in is to be such applied liberal construction should not be to the determination scope provisions excluding and intent of of the act (MCL seq.; seq.). beneñts 500.3101 et MSA 24.13101 et — — — 7. Insurance Automobiles No-Fault Insurance Personal — — — Protection Benefits Parked Automobile "Involved” Statutes. An uninsured automobile which is in the having its tank ñlled when the owner of said automobile is automobile, struck and another no contact made between the other automobile and the uninsured automo- bile, is not "involved" in the accident within the provision Michigan beneñt exclusion no-fault Heard v State Farm (MCL 500.3113[b]; MSA vehicle act 24.13U3[b]). Sachs, Nunn, Kates, & Marston, Kadushin . Barnes), plaintiff. (by O’Hare, David K for P.C. McKinney Eggenberger, Eggenberger, Weber, & for defendant. Beasley Gillis, P.J., and R. M. H.
Before: J. Ransom,* JJ. car to a drove his uninsured J. Plaintiff Beasley, gasoline plaintiff pumped gas station. As
self-serve car, defendant’s insured a car driven into his plaintiff. never collided. The two vehicles struck requested from defen- no-fault benefits Plaintiff dant, claiming his car was not connected with that im- no claim of "serious accident. There was pairment body 500.3135; under MCL function” Upon refusal to make 24.13135. defendant’s MSA payments, brought plaintiff Defendant filed suit. pursuant summary judgment to GCR for motion 117.2(1). grant summary judg- 1963, From right. plaintiff appeals defendant, as of ment to impres- presents another issue of first This case no-fault insurance law. The sion under this state’s question "in- the word before the court concerns 500.3113(b); used in MCL volved” as 24.13113(b). held that The trial court injuries benefits, as his not entitled to no-fault his uninsured arose out of an accident which that contends automobile was "involved”. Plaintiff "parked”, no his car was there was *4 therefore, and, the vehicles contact between trial court’s definition of was the term "involved” erroneous.
* assignment. sitting Appeals by judge, on the Court of Circuit to of
Exceptions payment forth in MCL are set 24.13113(b) 500.3113(b); MSA as follows: personal protec- person paid to "A is not entitled if bodily injury for accidental at tion insurance benefits any following circum- of the accident time stances existed:
"(b) registrant person or of a The was owner respect in the accident with motor vehicle involved (3) (4) security required by subsections of which the added.) (Emphasis section 3101 was not in effect.” plaintiff’s It is contention that at the time of the hap- accident a who merely he was near his pened standing parked to be automobile. However, 500.3106; 24.13106, under MCL appears to be within the statute’s plaintiff’s injury contemplation: bodily injury
"Accidental does not arise out of the ownership, operation, parked or maintenance use of a any following vehicle as motor vehicle unless occur:
"(a) way The vehicle was in such a as to cause bodily injury unreasonable risk of the which occurred. "(b) injury The was a direct result vehicle, equipment permanently with mounted on the equipment being operated while the or used or property being lifted onto or lowered from the vehicle loading unloading process. in the "(c) person was sustained while occupying, entering alighting into or from the vehicle.” added.) (Emphasis case,
Under the facts of this where in the pumping gasoline automobile, tank we find that the accident *5 55 Farm Mutual Ins Heard v State op Opinion the Court ownership, maintenance or use of out of the arose language it fell the because within the car (b) emphasized forth above. and set subsection plaintiff Further, find that was a we do not statute, even though automo- he was outside the confines the accident occurred. bile when Co,1 Mutual the Court In Collins v Motorists Ins leaning person injured while held that a who was parked car, in trunk of a which he had over the passenger, disabled, but which was now was been a "occupant” of an automobile within the mean an ing necessary policy. It
of an insurance
was not
party
insured
be inside of the vehicle
occurred.
when the accident
Co2is a case in
Nickerson v Citizens
plaintiff
he stood in
which the
when
recently
front of the car
from which he had
alighted..
found that a definition of the
The court
'physical
"occupying”,
word
"which does not hold
appears
by
mandatory,
contact’
to us to be
far the
approach.”3
persuasive
more reasonable and
Michigan
Although
find no
case which con-
we
a motor vehicle is "in-
cerns itself with whether
accident,
volved” in an
several courts outside of
opportunity
jurisdiction
to exam-
this
have had an
cases,
the term. In one of those
Stout v Sut-
ine
ton,4
in the context
the court dealt with the term
bring
statute.5 To
of a non-resident motorist
(1971).
424;
App
1 36Mich
194
148
NW2d
2
(1975).
324;
vehicle who extended the laws operate operated within nonresidents to state motor vehicles or have them shall, operation acceptance of such motor such state, agent secretary vehicle within this make the of state the 93 Mich operation, statute into the motor vehicle of a non- resident must be "involved” in an accident or damages collision or which occurs within the state. injured by log, part Stout, In cargo, which fell off the truck as it was argued plain- unloaded. Defendant that since by any part tiff was not struck itself, of the truck *6 the motor vehicle was not involved. Defendant also just easily claimed that could as have rolling log occurred after it was unloaded from the truck. determining court,
The that the motor vehicle though was "involved” in the accident even during unloading, accident occurred indicated that if the "involved”, vehicle were not the accident happened. would not have The court found little difference between an accident which arose in unloading process connection with the and an integral part accident which arises because some negligently of the motor vehicle is defective or handled. o6
Lykens
Pipe
v American Cast Iron
C also
determined the
of "involved” in the con
text of a non-resident motorist act and found:
The word 'involved’ under
Pennsylvania
"[1]
stat-
ute has not
interpreted
been
something
to mean
con-
nected with the accident as a
logical
natural or
effect of
accident,
but that
involvement
just
means
that and
not causation. Wilson Armstrong,
Thus, finding plaintiffs our in the accident with was "involved” tor vehicle precludes pay- insured’s vehicle defendant’s insurance benefits ment of under the statute.
Affirmed. Gillis, P.J., H. concurred.
J. (dissenting). The con- majority R. M. J. within the contem- plaintiffs injury cludes comes i.e. 500.3106(b); 24.13106(b), MCL plation of "ownership, operation, mainte- arising out of the vehicle. The majority nance or use” of a motor pedestrian. was not a plaintiff further concludes Therefore, "involved” within plaintiffs vehicle was 24.13113(b). 500.3113(b); MSA meaning of MCL cov- required "Had carried the insurance he erage, recipient he would be the attempts now to claim from the substitute source.” reasoning. I not with this agree do out of "the own- plaintiffs Whether arose maintenance or use” of a motor ership, operation, vehicle, him to receive bene- which would entitle cover- requisite fits had he carried the insurance determining not age, necessarily should control in the whether vehicle was "involved” plaintiffs accident. "no-fault automobile so-called
act” is remedial
in nature.1 Insofar as the Act is
nature,
construed.2
liberally
remedial
it is to be
General,
Attorney
(1978).
554;
Shavers
NW2d
*8
2
State,
Secretary
(1975).
588;
Dillon v
of
61 Mich
I not agree do that such liberal construction in should followed determining the issue of exclusion from benefits.
Plaintiffs vehicle was parked. 500.3106; MCL MSA 24.13106 in provides pertinent part: bodily
"Accidental injury does not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a *** * vehicle as a motor vehicle unless
"(b) The injury was a physical direct result of With equipment vehicle, on permanently mounted equipment being operated while the or used property being lifted onto or lowered frtím the vehicle loading unloading process.” (b) Brothers on My rely sub-section aforesaid in concluding statute incurred accidental bodily injury arising out of the owner- ship, operation or maintenance or use of his parked automobile.
Not so. Plaintiffs the "direct result” vehicle, struck by another motor not the result "direct contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle”.
Plaintiffs motor vehicle was not "involved” this accident within the contemplation of MCL 500.3113(b); 24.13113(b).
I would reverse.
3
36 Mich
App 424;
324;