Yost v. League General Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 September 1995
• Docket Number: Docket No. 158178
• Citation: 539 N.W.2d 568,213 Mich.App. 183
• Parties: Kevin D. YOST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEAGUE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a Cuna Mutual Insurance Group, Defendant-Appellee, and Massachusetts Indemnity and Life Insurance Company, Defendant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 568

539 N.W.2d 568

213 Mich.App. 183

Kevin D. YOST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEAGUE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a Cuna Mutual Insurance Group, Defendant-Appellee and Massachusetts Indemnity and Life Insurance Company, Defendant.

Docket No. 158178.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted April 6, 1995, at Grand Rapids.

Decided Sept. 1, 1995, at 9:20 a.m.

Released for Publication Nov. 17, 1995.

Williams, Klukowski, Fotieo & Szczytko, P.C. (by Themis J. Fotieo), Grand Rapids, for plaintiff.

Smith, Haughey, Rice & Roegge (by Jon D. Vander Ploeg), Grand Rapids, for defendant.

Before HOOD, P.J., and MacKENZIE and THOMAS, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting partial summary disposition in favor of defendant League General Insurance Company (hereinafter defendant). We affirm.

Plaintiff was sleeping in a parked car when it caught on fire. According to investigators, the fire was ignited when a lighted cigarette fell on combustible material inside the car; there was no indication that the car was the source of the fire. Plaintiff, who was severely burned, sued defendant no-fault carrier for first-party personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendant, ruling that plaintiff was not using the car as a motor vehicle and therefore was not entitled to benefits.

Under § 3105(1) of the Michigan no-fault insurance act, M.C.L. § 500.3105(1); M.S.A. § 24.13105(1), a no-fault 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. Injuries that arise out of the use of a parked motor vehicle generally are not covered under the no-fault act. M.C.L. § 500.3106(1); M.S.A. § 24.13106(1); McKenzie v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 211 Mich.App. 659, 536 N.W.2d 301 (1995). However, there are several statutory exceptions to this "parked vehicle exclusion" that permit recovery. Gooden v. Transamerica Ins. Corp. of America, 166 Mich.App. 793, 796, 420 N.W.2d 877 (1988). One of these exceptions is where the injury is sustained by a person while occupying the parked vehicle. M.C.L. § 500.3106(1)(c); M.S.A. § 24.13106(1)(c).

A claimant seeking to recover no-fault benefits under one of the exceptions to the parked vehicle exclusion must, in addition to showing that an exception applies, show that the injury arose out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. Gooden, supra, pp 797-804, 420 N.W.2d 877; Engwis v. Michigan Mutual Ins. Co., 181 Mich.App. 16, 20, 448 N.W.2d 731 (1989). In determining whether an injury arose out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, the primary consideration must be the relationship between the injury and the use of the motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. McKenzie, supra, p 662, 536 N.W.2d 301. The involvement of the parked vehicle in the injury must be directly related to its character as a motor vehicle and be more than incidental, fortuitous, or "but for," and the vehicle's connection with the injury should be directly related to its character as an automobile. Id. citing Thornton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 425 Mich. 643, 659, 391 N.W.2d 320 (1986).

In this case, it is undisputed that because plaintiff was occupying the vehicle at the time he was injured, an exception to the parked vehicle exclusion applies. M.C.L. § 500.3106(1)(c); M.S.A. § 24.13106(1)(c). However, as a matter of law, pla...