Ansara v. State Farm Ins. Co., Docket No. 157737
| Decision Date | 17 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 157737 |
| Parties | Albert ANSARA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Jacob S. Ghannan, Detroit, for plaintiff.
Romain, Donofrio, Kuck & Egerer, P.C. by Melanie T. Frazier, Southfield, for defendant.
Before SAWYER, P.J., and FITZGERALD and EVELAND, * JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the circuit court granting summary disposition in favor of defendant pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) on plaintiff's claim for first-party no-fault insurance benefits. We reverse.
According to plaintiff, he was injured when he was proceeding to reenter his vehicle after assisting his wife into the vehicle. Specifically, plaintiff states that he had entered his car, started it, and switched on the air conditioner. He then got out of the vehicle, leaving the driver's side door open, and walked around the car to open the front passenger door and to assist his wife in securing their grandson in a child-restraint device. He also assisted his wife in entering the car and closing the passenger door. Plaintiff then walked around the rear of the car and, while approaching the driver's side door to again enter the vehicle, he stepped upon a stone or other debris, resulting in a fracture of his ankle. Plaintiff states that he was approximately one foot away from the driver's seat at the time of the injury, that he caught himself on the car and sat on the car seat after the injury.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff was not entering into a motor vehicle at the time of his injury under M.C.L. § 500.3106(c); M.S.A. § 24.13106(c). 1 We agree. The distinction to be drawn in this case is, we believe, that posed between King v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 118 Mich.App. 648, 325 N.W.2d 528 (1982), and Hunt v. Citizens Ins. Co., 183 Mich.App. 660, 455 N.W.2d 384 (1990). In King, this Court concluded that the plaintiff was not entering a motor vehicle when he slipped on ice as he was reaching to unlock the car door, with his hand approximately two inches away from the car at the time of the fall. In Hunt, on the other hand, this Court concluded that the plaintiff was in the process of entering a motor vehicle when struck by another vehicle where he had his car keys in his hand and his left hand was on the car door. This Court concluded that there was a sufficient nexus between the use of the vehicle and the injury to give rise to coverage. Id. at 664, 455 N.W.2d 384. The case at bar is closer factually to Hunt than it is to King. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
I believe that this case is closer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Aetna Ins. Co.
...recent Michigan cases for the proposition that he was "getting into" the Hagler Construction vehicle. See Ansara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 207 Mich.App. 320, 523 N.W.2d 899 (1994); Hunt v. Citizens Ins. Co., 183 Mich.App. 660, 455 N.W.2d 384 (1990). In Ansara, the plaintiff claimed that he wa......
-
Shanafelt v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...vehicle, a requirement sometimes referred to as the causative or causal nexus requirement. See, e.g., Ansara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 207 Mich.App. 320, 322, 523 N.W.2d 899 (1994). As stated by our Supreme Court in Thornton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 425 Mich. 643, 659, 391 N.W.2d 320 (1986): "Th......