McKenney v. Crum & Forster

Decision Date06 September 1996
Docket NumberDocket Nos. 179937,181319
CitationMcKenney v. Crum & Forster, 554 N.W.2d 600, 218 Mich.App. 619 (Mich. App. 1996)
PartiesMichael P. McKENNEY, Tami L. McKenney, Patrick McKenney, Deena McKenney and Stephen McKenney, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. CRUM & FORSTER, Intervenor-Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan

Mark Granzotto, Detroit, J. Martin Bartnick, Southfield, for Michael P. McKenney and others.

Galbraith & Booms by Steven B. Galbraith and Paul B. Hines, Southfield, for Crum & Forster.

Before TAYLOR, P.J., and MURPHY and E.J. GRANT, * JJ.

TAYLOR, Presiding Judge.

The uncontested facts show that plaintiffMichael McKenney was injured at his place of employment, Cryogenic Transport, while trying to prevent defendantRanson Kelly, an employee of defendant Seng Tire, from being injured by a rolling truck owned by Seng Tire.State Farm(Cryogenic's no-fault carrier) paid plaintiff no-fault benefits for injuries sustained in the accident.Crum & Forster (Cryogenic's worker's compensation insurer) also paid plaintiff worker's compensation benefits.The worker's compensation benefits were coordinated with plaintiff's no-fault benefits such that the no-fault insurer subtracted the worker's compensation benefits from the no-fault benefits that it would otherwise have paid to McKenney.Plaintiffs settled with defendant Mercy Hospital, Port Huron, a claim of medical malpractice, in which it was alleged that the hospital failed to properly treat Michael McKenney's injuries.Plaintiffs settled negligence claims against Seng Tire and Ranson Kelly.

In Docket No. 179937, plaintiffs appeal as of right from an order allowing Crum & Forster to intervene to assert a worker's compensation lien pursuant to M.C.L. § 418.827(5);M.S.A. § 17.237(827)(5) on plaintiffs' settlement with defendant Mercy Hospital.In Docket No. 181319, Crum & Forster appeals as of right from an order entered by the original judge's successor, who denied its motion to intervene to assert a worker's compensation lien on plaintiffs' settlements with defendants Seng Tire and Ranson Kelly.The appeals were consolidated by this Court.We reverse in Docket No. 179937 and affirm in Docket No. 181319.

In Docket No. 179937, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in ruling that Crum & Forster had the right to assert a lien with respect to the settlement they reached with Mercy Hospital.Crum & Forster's right to intervene was contingent on its right to assert a worker's compensation lien.This issue presents a question of law that we review de novo.Cardinal Mooney High School v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n, 437 Mich. 75, 80, 467 N.W.2d 21(1991).The trial court determined that the no-fault carrier improperly paid McKenney no-fault benefits, finding that the no-fault act (M.C.L. § 500.3101 et seq.;M.S.A. § 24.13101 et seq.) did not apply.The trial court held that the truck was the site but not the instrumentality of the accident.We disagree and reverse.

Because Crum & Forster does not allege that any portion of its payments to McKenney was in excess of those available under the no-fault act, there is no question that Crum & Forster would not have been entitled to a lien if no-fault benefits were properly paid.Gibson v. American Motors Corp., 208 Mich.App. 470, 471-472, 528 N.W.2d 742(1994);Bialochowski v. Cross Concrete Pumping Co., 428 Mich. 219, 225, 407 N.W.2d 355(1987), overruled in part on other groundsWinter v. Automobile Club of Michigan, 433 Mich. 446, 458, n. 10, 446 N.W.2d 132(1989);Great American Ins. Co. v. Queen, 410 Mich. 73, 300 N.W.2d 895(1980).

At the outset we find that State Farm's payment of no-fault benefits does not bar Crum & Forster as a matter of law from claiming McKenney was not entitled to no-fault benefits.It is conceivable that a no-fault carrier, because of a misapprehension of the law or facts or some other reason, would make no-fault payments where none were due.In such a circumstance, the worker's compensation carrier may seek to intervene and can request a determination from the court of the propriety of the payment of no-fault benefits and thus obtain a ruling whether it is barred from seeking reimbursement.If the court finds under the facts of the case that payment of benefits was improvidently made by the no-fault carrier, the court should grant the motion to intervene so the worker's compensation carrier can assert its lien.

Thus, the issue is whether no-fault benefits were properly paid.We find that they were.The no-fault act is remedial in nature.No-fault benefits are payable for certain accidental bodily injuries arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.M.C.L. § 500.3105;M.S.A. § 24.13105.The act must be liberally construed in favor of those for whom benefit was intended, i.e., persons injured in motor vehicle accidents.Lee v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 207 Mich.App. 323, 327, 523 N.W.2d 900(1994).Whether an injury arises out of the use of a motor vehicle must be determined case by case.Gordon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 197 Mich.App. 609, 614, 496 N.W.2d 357(1992).In making this determination, the causal connection between the injury and the use of the motor vehicle must be more than incidental, fortuitous, or but for.Thornton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 425 Mich. 643, 660, 391 N.W.2d 320(1986).In the case at bar, we are convinced that there was a sufficient causal connection between McKenney's injury and Seng Tire's truck.At the time McKenney was injured, the truck's engine was running and the vehicle had just rolled down an incline, trapping Kelly's arm between the door of the vehicle and the door frame of the terminal.McKenney...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • Ramsey v. Kohl
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • September 18, 1998
    ...in a third-party action is contingent on its statutory right to assert a worker's compensation lien. McKenney v. Crum & Forster, 218 Mich.App. 619, 621-622, 554 N.W.2d 600 (1996). This is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Id. As a general matter, an employer or worker's compensation......
  • Morosini v. Citizens Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • June 6, 1997
    ...accidents, and whether an injury arises out of the use of a motor vehicle must be determined case by case. McKenney v. Crum & Forster, 218 Mich.App. 619, 623, 554 N.W.2d 600 (1996). In Thornton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 425 Mich. 643, 650-651, 391 N.W.2d 320 (1986), the Court adopted the causat......
  • Detroit Med. Ctr. v. Progressive Mich. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • September 3, 2013
    ...376 (2004). “Whether an injury arises out of the use of a motor vehicle must be determined case by case.” McKenney v. Crum & Forster, 218 Mich.App. 619, 623, 554 N.W.2d 600 (1996); Jones, 129 Mich.App. at 192, 341 N.W.2d 469. We can find no causal connection between the motorcyclist's injur......
  • Rice v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • April 26, 2002
    ...27. See McMullen v. Motors Ins. Corp., 203 Mich.App. 102, 103, 105-107, 512 N.W.2d 38 (1993). 28. See McKenney v. Crum & Forster, 218 Mich.App. 619, 623-624, 554 N.W.2d 600 (1996). 29. See Miller v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 411 Mich. 633, 639-641, 309 N.W.2d 544 30. See M.C.L. § 500.3101(2)(e)......