Dembinski v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., Docket No. 28745
| Decision Date | 07 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 28745 |
| Citation | 256 N.W.2d 69,76 Mich.App. 181 |
| Parties | Lawrence DEMBINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, a Connecticut Corp., Defendant-Appellee. 76 Mich.App. 181, 256 N.W.2d 69 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[76 MICHAPP 182] Frank R. Langton, Warren, for plaintiff-appellant.
Brian D. Einhorn, Southfield, for defendant-appellee.
Before DANHOF, C. J., and R. B. BURNS and EDWARD A. QUINNELL, * JJ.
Plaintiff had summary judgment entered against him in an action to recover under an insurance contract covering his truck, and appeals.
While plaintiff was carrying a ceramic mold from his store through a vestibule or hallway toward an outside doorway to load the mold into his truck, he slipped in a puddle of water, fell, and injured his back. He was twenty feet from his truck when he fell. The mold did not land on him.
Plaintiff's insurance policy provides that defendant will pay "personal protection benefits * * * as a result of bodily injury caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use, including loading or unloading, of a motor vehicle * * *." Plaintiff contends that his injury was caused by an accident arising out of the loading of his truck.
Loading and unloading clauses in insurance contracts have been broadly construed against insurance[76 MICHAPP 183] companies because they have been ambiguous and because a broad construction prevents the clause from being consumed by the term "use" and rendered mere surplusage. Thus, such a clause could encompass the period during which an object was removed from its place of rest and was carried to and placed in a vehicle. See e. g., Allstate Insurance Co. v. Valdez, 190 F.Supp. 893 (E.D.Mich., 1961).
The clause is not ambiguous in the instant case. The insurance contract excludes "bodily injury * * * arising out of * * * use, including loading and unloading, of a parked vehicle unless * * * such bodily injury was the direct result of physical contact with * * * property being lifted onto or lowered from such motor vehicle in the loading or unloading process". The wording of this exclusion is similar to and complies with the definition of accidental bodily injury arising out of use of a parked vehicle contained in M.C.L.A. § 500.3106; M.S.A. § 24.13106. Thus, it is clear that the loading process consists only of the lifting of property into the vehicle.
Since plaintiff was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America
...because "a broader construction prevents the clause from being consumed by the term `use'." Dembinski v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 76 Mich.App. 181, 183, 256 N.W.2d 69, 70 (1977). Whether enlarged or not I am satisfied the result here would be the 1. The analog of Section 3121 of the Act......
-
Bell v. F.J. Boutell Driveaway Co.
...insured vehicle. We decline to so limit the terms "loading" and "unloading" in subsection 3106(2). In Dembinski v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 76 Mich.App. 181, 256 N.W.2d 69 (1977), this Court recognized that the terms "loading" and "unloading" in motor vehicle insurance contracts have be......
-
Adanalic v. Harco Nat'l Ins. Co.
...occurred came within the insurance coverage of loading,” summary disposition may be properly granted. Dembinski v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 76 Mich.App. 181, 183–184, 256 N.W.2d 69 (1977). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's summary disposition ruling that plaintiffs are entitled to PI......
-
Dowdy v. Motorland Ins. Co.
...The plaintiff claims that subsection (b) applies to his situation. This subsection was interpreted in Dembinski v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 76 Mich.App. 181, 256 N.W.2d 69 (1977), where the plaintiff was carrying a ceramic mold which he was about to load unto his truck, slipped in a pud......