Harkins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1986
• Docket Number: Docket No. 85392
• Parties: James HARKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 741

385 N.W.2d 741

149 Mich.App. 98

James HARKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 85392.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Jan. 15, 1986.

Decided Feb. 5, 1986.

Released for Publication May 5, 1986.

Leave to Appeal Denied June 30, 1986.

Thomas, Garvey & Garvey, P.C. by Robert F. Garvey, St. Clair Shores, for plaintiff-appellant.

Romain, Donofrio & Kuck, P.C. by Pat M. Donofrio and John C. Brennan, Southfield, for defendant-appellee.

Before WALSH, P.J., and CYNAR and KAUFMAN, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit court's order of May 15, 1985, granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), which dismissed plaintiff's action for no-fault insurance benefits under M.C.L. § 500.3101 et seq.; M.S.A. § 24.13101 et seq.

On December 26, 1983, plaintiff parked his 1973 Plymouth in his garage and, after exiting from the vehicle, attempted to close the garage door. His hand slipped and he fell to the ground fracturing his hip. Plaintiff demanded payment for his damages from defendant, his no-fault automobile insurance carrier. Upon notice of defendant's refusal to pay, plaintiff instituted the instant action. He asserted that his injuries arose out of the maintenance of his motor vehicle, M.C.L. § 500.3105; M.S.A. § 24.13105 and, alternatively, that his injuries were caused when he was alighting from his automobile, M.C.L. § 500.3106(c); M.S.A. § 24.13106(c). Plaintiff's action was dismissed pursuant to defendant's motion for summary disposition.

Plaintiff first argues that parking his automobile in his garage was a method of "maintaining" his car within the meaning of M.C.L. § 500.1305; M.S.A. § 24.13105 because it preserved the outer body and inner mechanics of the car from the natural elements and the threat of theft, and that closing the garage door was foreseeably identifiable with the maintenance. We disagree.

M.C.L. § 500.3105; M.S.A. § 24.13105 provides for personal protection benefits for "accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle". While injuries sustained while a vehicle is parked are generally excluded from no-fault recovery, M.C.L. § 500.3106; M.S.A. § 500.13106, benefits can be recovered if the injuries were sustained while performing maintenance upon the parked vehicle. Miller v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 411 Mich. 633, 309 N.W.2d 544 (1981). Although the vehicle does not have to be the proximate cause of the injury, there must be a causal connection between, in this case, the maintenance and the injury sustained. King v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 118 Mich App 648; 325 N.W.2d 528 (1982), lv. den. 418 Mich 881 (1983); Central Mutual Ins. Co. v. Walter, 143 Mich.App. 332, 372 N.W.2d 542 (1985). "The injury must be foreseeably identifiable with the normal use, maintenance and ownership of the vehicle." Kangas v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 64 Mich.App. 1, 17, 235 N.W.2d 42 (1975), lv. den. 395 Mich. 787 (1975).

We do not believe that plaintiff's injuries were causally connected to the maintenance of his vehicle. Plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the parked vehicle but by the garage door. This was merely a premises hazard unrelated to the repair and maintenance of the vehicle. Central Mutual Ins, supra, 143 Mich.App. p. 337, 372 N.W.2d 542. The same injuries could have occurred when plaintiff was taking out the trash or getting his lawn mower or for any number of reasons. The presence of the automobile was only incidentally related to plaintiff's injuries and his fall was not foreseeably identifiable with the maintenance of the vehicle.

Neither are we convinced that "maintenance" encompasses parking the vehicle in the garage. The Supreme Court has stated that in addition to the common sense meaning of the word, "maintenance" covers the act of repairing the vehicle. Miller, supra, 411 Mich. p. 639, 1309 N.W.2d 544. Michigan Mutual Ins. Co. v. Carson City Texaco, Inc., 421 Mich. 144, 365 N.W.2d 89 (1984). While this Court has found that "maintenance" should be given a liberal construction, Wagner v. Michigan Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 135 Mich.App. 767, 356 N.W.2d 262 (1984), we do not believe that the Legislature intended it to apply to activities so tangentially related to the normal repair and servicing of a vehicle as parking a car inside a garage. We conclude that plaintiff's injuries did not arise out of the maintenance of his vehicle and accordingly affirm the lower court's order granting summary disposition on this basis.

Plaintiff's alternative basis for recovery is equally unpersuasive. Subsection (c) of the parked vehicle exclusion, M.C.L. § 500.3106; M.S.A. § 500.13106, exempts injuries sustained while "alighting from" a parked vehicle. Although there is no statutory definition of the phrase "alighting from", this Court has generally...