Williams v. Citizens Mut. Ins. Co. of America

• Decision Date: 09 January 1980
• Docket Number: Docket No. 44142
• Citation: 94 Mich.App. 762,290 N.W.2d 76
• Parties: Leola WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITIZENS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Foreign Insurance Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 76

290 N.W.2d 76

94 Mich.App. 762

Leola WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITIZENS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Foreign Insurance Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 44142.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Jan. 9, 1980.

Released for Publication April 4, 1980.

Robert P. Ladd, Jackson, for plaintiff-appellant.

Charles A. Nelson, Jackson, for defendant-appellee.

Before MAHER, P. J., and MacKENZIE and PIERCEY, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Leola Williams appeals as of right from a February 23, 1979 order of the Jackson County Circuit Court granting defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(3).

On October 1, 1978, plaintiff's daughter, Monica Faye Williams, was a passenger in a car involved in an accident and suffered injuries resulting in her death. The automobile in which she was riding was insured by a no-fault automobile policy issued by defendant Citizens Mutual Insurance Company of America. At the time of the accident, plaintiff did not own a vehicle which was insured, nor was there any co-domiciled relative who owned such a vehicle. Prior to the time of the accident, Monica Faye Williams had been residing with plaintiff at her home in Jackson, Michigan.

Plaintiff made demand for reimbursement of her lost wages and costs of psychiatric care which she was forced to undergo upon her daughter's death. When defendant denied liability, suit was filed in Jackson County Circuit Court seeking recovery of the lost wages and costs of psychiatric care.

The lower court held that defendant was not liable because plaintiff was not personally involved in the use, operation, or maintenance of the motor vehicle which gave rise to plaintiff's daughter's death. The court further noted that there was no analogous tort recovery since plaintiff did not see the accident occur or view a body within minutes of the accident.

We agree with the trial court's ruling. According to M.C.L. § 500.3105(1); M.S.A. § 24.13105(1):

"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."

Plaintiff's injury did not arise out of the "ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle". Rather, her injury arose out of the death of her daughter which in turn arose out of the operation of a motor vehicle.

We note that the term "arising out of" does not necessitate a finding that the injury was directly and proximately caused by the use of the vehicle. On the other hand, it cannot be extended to something distinctly remote. Each case depends on its own facts. Shinabarger v. Citizens Mutual Ins. Co., 90 Mich.App. 307, 313-315, 282 N.W.2d 301 (1979). As a general rule, the injury must be foreseeably identifiable with the normal use of the vehicle. O'Key v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 89 Mich.App. 526, 280 N.W.2d 583 (1979), Kangas v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 64 Mich.App. 1, 235 N.W.2d 42 (1975).

In the...