Miller v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 01 September 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 63808,AUTO-OWNERS,2 |
Citation | 411 Mich. 633,309 N.W.2d 544 |
Parties | Richard J. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Calendar |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Sinas, Dramis, Brake, Boughton, McIntyre & Reisig, P.C., Lansing, for plaintiff-appellant by George T. Sinas, Lansing.
Fraser, Trebilcock, Davis & Foster, P.C., Lansing, for defendant-appellee by C. Mark Hoover, Lansing.
Richard J. Miller was severely injured when his automobile fell on his chest while he was attempting to replace a pair of shock absorbers. The repair was being done in the parking lot of Miller's apartment building.
Miller sought personal protection insurance benefits from his no-fault insurance carrier, defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company, alleging that payment of such benefits is required by the no-fault motor vehicle liability act:
"Under personal protection insurance an insurer is liable to pay benefits for accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, subject to the provisions of this chapter." M.C.L. § 500.3105(1); M.S.A. § 24.13105(1) (emphasis supplied).
Auto-Owners defended on the grounds that Miller's car was "parked" at the time of his injury, and that the obligation to pay benefits imposed by § 3105(1) was thus qualified by the "parked vehicle" exception found in § 3106 of the no-fault act:
"(c) The injury was sustained by a person while occupying, entering into or alighting from the vehicle." M.C.L. § 500.3106; M.S.A. § 24.13106 (emphasis supplied).
The trial court granted Miller's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, holding that Miller was maintaining the vehicle under § 3105, and that it was not parked within the meaning of § 3106. The parties then stipulated to the amount of damages and a judgment was entered for Miller. The Court of Appeals reversed, 92 Mich.App. 263, 284 N.W.2d 525, holding that the vehicle was parked, and remanded for a determination whether Miller's injury fell within one of the three classes of injury enumerated in clauses (a)-(c) of § 3106 as arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a parked vehicle as a motor vehicle. We reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
There is an apparent tension between these two sections of the no-fault act: requiring, on the one hand, compensation for injuries incurred in the maintenance of a vehicle but not requiring, on the other hand, compensation for injuries incurred in the maintenance of a parked vehicle, with three exceptions. Since most, if not all, maintenance is done while the vehicle is parked, and since the three exceptions appear addressed to circumstances unrelated to normal maintenance situations, a conflict appears.
It would perhaps be possible, as argued by Auto-Owners, to distinguish among parked vehicles according to whether they were parked involuntarily, as when a driver pulls onto the shoulder to repair a flat tire, or voluntarily, as in Miller's case. Such a distinction, however, would often be difficult to draw. What of a car which is obviously malfunctioning but which the driver is able to nurse home to his or her garage, where the tools necessary for the repair are available? What of a car which is voluntarily parked in one's driveway but which, after a cold Michigan night, becomes involuntarily parked? Would an injury from a battery explosion while trying to jump-start the car be covered? We do not think that a nebulous distinction between voluntarily and involuntarily parked-for-repair vehicles was intended.
This apparent conflict should not be resolved solely by focusing on the term "parked" but, rather, through an assessment of the respective policies appearing from the requirement of coverage in § 3105(1) and the exclusion from that required coverage for parked vehicles in § 3106 as they bear upon the scope of coverage intended by the Legislature.
The phrase "arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use" of a vehicle has commonly been used in automobile insurance policies, and was apparently used in the no-fault act in awareness of that history.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bourne v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
...A.2d 163.]33 Nor is it consequential that the injury may be seen as having occurred outside the vehicle. In Miller v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 411 Mich. 633, 309 N.W.2d 544 (1981), this Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to no-fault benefits for injuries arising out of the maintenance ......
-
Kemp v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. of Mich.
...act involves use of the parked motor vehicle as a motor vehicle."34 This purported underlying policy was first explained in Miller v. Auto–Owners Ins. Co.,35 which involved a claim for accidental bodily injury arising out of the maintenance of a motor vehicle, although the vehicle was parke......
-
Gooden v. Transamerica Ins. Corp. of America
...Court's decisions in Heard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 414 Mich. 139, 324 N.W.2d 1 (1982), AND MILLER V. AUTO-OWNErs ins co, 411 MIch. 633, 309 n.w.2d 544 (1981). In a summary decision, the Supreme Court ruled, without independent explanation, that "the judgment of the Court of ......
-
Woodring v. Phx. Ins. Co.
...Allstate Ins. Co. , 490 Mich. 381, 808 N.W.2d 450 (2011), are controlling because they partially "disavowed" Miller v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. , 411 Mich. 633, 309 N.W.2d 544 (1981), on which Musall relied. This convoluted chain thus depends on what exactly "disavowal" means and whether the pe......