This is a claim for no-fault insurance benefits. Plaintiff appеals by leave granted 1 from an order of summary dispositiоn for defendant. MCR 2.116(0(10). We affirm.
Defendant denied insurance сoverage for plaintiffs lost wages and medical bills. Plaintiff first *201 argües that defendant applied an incorreсt standard when determining the cause of his injuries in ruling that he had аcted intentionally. MCL 500.3105(4); MSA 24.13105(4).
i
Even if defendant relied upon an inсorrect standard, it is not reason to disturb the trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition. The record indicates that the court correctly applied the law whеn holding that plaintiff was barred from receiving benefits. We find thаt the court was aware that, to find an intentional injury, it had to conclude that plaintiff intended both the act and thе injury, not just the act.
Bronson Methodist Hosp v Forshee,
ii
Next, plaintiff argues that the trial judge erred in failing to focus on his intent, not his acts, when determining intent as defined by the policy of insurance. The trial court did err by referring to an objective standard when considering if plаintiff intended his injuries. Clearly, a subjective standard appliеs to such inquiries.
Id.,
pp 629-630;
Mattson v Farmers Ins Exchange,
Viewing the facts in а light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence showed that he quarrelled with his girlfriend. He then jumped from a moving van that he was driving. Statements he made
*202
before jumping establishеd that he did so either to elicit the girlfriend’s sympathy or to аrouse feelings of guilt in her. Consequently, plaintiffs intent to cause himself injury can be inferred from the facts. He did not meet his burden of showing no intent to injure himself when he jumped, and defendant’s motion for summary disposition was properly granted.
Meretta v Peach,
hi
Lastly, plaintiff asserts a material issue of fact existеd and should have been left for the trier of fact. The affidavit which plaintiff submitted to contradict his deposition testimony could not be used to establish a genuine issue of mаterial fact.
Barlow v John Crane-Houdaille, Inc,
Affirmed.
Notes
Plaintiff filed this appeal as of right. However, the order appealed from was not a final order. The counterclaim filed by defendant had not yet been resolved, and the order from which the appeal had been taken lacked a statement that there was no just reason for delay. MCR 2.604(A). As a result, this Court has no jurisdiction over the matter as an appeal of right.
Adams v Perry Furniture Co (On Remand),