Arnold v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

Decision Date06 June 1978
Docket NumberAUTO-OWNERS,Docket No. 77-4341
PartiesElmer P. ARNOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.INSURANCE COMPANY and Michigan Mutual Insurance Group, Defendants-Appellees. 84 Mich.App. 75, 269 N.W.2d 311
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

[84 MICHAPP 76] Sinas, Dramis, Brake, Turner, Boughton, McIntyre & Reisig by George T. Sinas, Lansing, for plaintiff-appellant.

Everett R. Trebilcock, Lansing, for Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

John L. Collins by Michael J. Schmedlen, Lansing, for Michigan Mut. Ins. Group.

Before DANHOF, C. J., and BRONSON and CYNAR, JJ.

DANHOF, Chief Judge.

This appeal involves § 3106(b) of the No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, M.C.L.A. § 500.3106(b); M.S.A. § 24.13106(b). Plaintiff appeals from a circuit court order entered October 19, 1977, denying his motion for a rehearing and reaffirming the circuit court's order of August 17, 1977, granting defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Plaintiff was employed by Square Deal Cartage Company. His duties included loading, driving and unloading a truck used to haul automobiles. On August 18, 1975, plaintiff ruptured a disc in his back while lifting a loading dock "skid" (ramp) onto the upper deck of the truck he operated. As a result, plaintiff became disabled and has been drawing workers' compensation benefits.

Plaintiff brought this suit to recover no-fault [84 MICHAPP 77] insurance benefits. Defendant Michigan Mutual had issued a no-fault policy to the plaintiff's employer covering the truck operated by plaintiff. Defendant Auto-Owners had issued a no-fault policy to the plaintiff covering his own personal automobile.

In granting defendants' motions for summary judgment the circuit court dealt with one issue, the meaning of M.C.L. § 500.3106(b); M.S.A. 24.13106(b) which provides that no-fault insurers are liable for paying certain claims arising from accidents involving Parked motor vehicles when:

"(b) The injury was a direct result of physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle, while the equipment was being operated or used or Property being lifted onto or lowered from the vehicle in the loading or unloading process." (Emphasis added.)

Defendant insurers claim that the emphasized clause is a dependent clause subject to the requirements set forth in the first part of the section. Thus, in their view, an injury occurring during the loading process is compensable only if it was the direct result of physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle. Plaintiff argues that the emphasized clause is independent and that therefore an injury occurring as a direct result of physical contact with property being lifted onto or lowered from a vehicle during the loading or unloading process is compensable, regardless of whether the injury was caused by physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle. Since plaintiff's injury was caused by lifting a loading dock ramp (not permanently mounted on the vehicle) onto the truck, acceptance of defendants' interpretation disposes of the claim under § 3106(b). The circuit [84 MICHAPP 78] court agreed with defendants' reading of the statute, stating:

"Section 3106, taken as a whole, attempts to restrict those instances in which no-fault benefits are payable for injuries resulting from accidents or occurrences involving parked vehicles. Section 3106(b) may be inartfully drawn and subject to numerous grammatical improvements and interpretations, many of which have been offered by the parties, but this Court is obligated to deal with the statute in the form in which it is written. Within this framework, the most natural and logical reading of Section 3106(b) is that the portion of the subsection which follows the comma modifies that portion which precedes the comma. Recovery of benefits is therefore limited to those instances in which injury is a direct result of physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle. Plaintiff was not so injured and is therefore not entitled to the recovery of no-fault insurance benefits."

The statute is ambiguous. Neither of the interpretations contended for by the parties is clearly correct on the face of the statute. Hence, we look to legislative intent to discern the correct interpretation. However, there is very little helpful legislative history. As originally introduced on June 2, 1971, SB 782 divided this section of the statute into two subsections:

"Sec. 6. Accidental bodily injury does not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a parked vehicle as a motor vehicle unless any of the following occur:

"(b) The injury was a direct result of physical contact with (i) equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle, while the equipment was being operated or used or (ii) property being lifted onto or lowered from the vehicle in the loading or unloading process."

[84...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Kemp v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. of Mich.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 15 Junio 2017
    ...erred by failing to view Dr. Kaura's affidavit in the light most favorable to plaintiff.30 See, e.g., Arnold v. Auto–Owners Ins. Co., 84 Mich.App. 75, 80, 269 N.W.2d 311 (1978) (reversing summary judgment for the insurance companies when the plaintiff ruptured a disk in his back while he wa......
  • Adanalic v. Harco Nat'l Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 5 Febrero 2015
    ...court found that plaintiffs satisfied the parked-vehicle exception of subsection (1)(b).As described in Arnold v. Auto–Owners Ins. Co., 84 Mich.App. 75, 79–80, 269 N.W.2d 311 (1978), MCL 500.3106(1)(b) contains two independent clauses and provides coverage when the injury was the direct res......
  • Dowdy v. Motorland Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 24 Abril 1980
    ...what occurred came within the insurance coverage of loading. Another case which interprets § 3106(b) is Arnold v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 84 Mich.App. 75, 269 N.W.2d 311 (1978). In Arnold, the plaintiff ruptured a disc in his back while he was lifting a ramp onto the upper deck of his employe......
  • Jones v. Tronex Chemical Corp.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 15 Diciembre 1983
    ...is independent of the reference to contact with equipment permanently affixed to the motor vehicle. See Arnold v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 84 Mich.App. 75, 80, 269 N.W.2d 311 (1978), lv. den. 405 Mich. 804 (1979). Carriers attempts to erect three lines of defense for its position that summary ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT