As he leaned into the trunk, he was struck by a GMC Envoy turning left onto eastbound Kercheval from southbound Van Dyke.

Sean sustained serious injuries as a consequence of the impact. At the time of the accident, the Honda Civic was insured under a no-fault policy issued by AAA Insurance Company. The other driver's vehicle was uninsured.

In September 2013, Ms. Clark applied for personal insurance protection (“PIP”) benefits from AAA on Sean's behalf. Initially, AAA voluntarily paid the PIP benefits, but later concluded that Sean was ineligible for benefits and, therefore, future payments were denied. Apparently because no other insurance coverage was readily identifiable, benefits were sought through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, which led to the appointment of Citizens Insurance Company of America as the servicing insurer.

Subsequently, a complaint was filed on Sean's behalf that sought to resolve which insurance carrier was first in priority for the payment of no-fault benefits to Sean. Several insurance companies were named as defendants, including Citizens and AAA.

Citizens moved for summary disposition, arguing that the AAA-insured Honda Civic was involved in the accident because Sean was in the process of unloading a parked vehicle when he was injured. Therefore, Citizens argued, AAA was a higher priority insurer than Citizens, an assignee of the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan.

AAA opposed the motion, arguing that the parked Honda Civic was not “involved in the accident” within the meaning of the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., and, therefore, that it had no obligation to pay PIP benefits. AAA requested that the trial court render judgment in its favor.

The trial court agreed with AAA that the Honda Civic was not involved in the accident for purposes of the no-fault law and, therefore, that AAA was not liable for the payment of PIP benefits. Accordingly, the court denied Citizens' motion for summary disposition and granted summary disposition in favor of AAA.

Citizens appealed, arguing that the parked Honda Civic had been “involved in the accident” for purposes of the no-fault act because Sean had been in physical contact with property being unloaded from the trunk of the vehicle – groceries – when he was struck by the GMC Envoy and injured.

Michigan Law

Pursuant to MCL 500.3105(1):

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.

Pursuant to MCL 500.3106(1), accidental bodily injury does not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a parked vehicle unless any of the following has occurred:

(a) The vehicle was parked in such a way as to cause unreasonable risk of the bodily injury which occurred.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), the injury was a direct result of physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle, while the equipment was being operated or used, or property being lifted onto or lowered from the vehicle in the loading or unloading process.

(c) Except as provided in subsection (2), the injury was sustained by a person while occupying, entering into, or alighting from the vehicle.

A person injured while not an occupant of a motor vehicle would first claim PIP benefits from the insurers of owners or operators of the vehicles:

involved in the accident.

MCL 500.3115(1).

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court affirmed.

In its decision, the appellate court explained that the vehicle obviously involved in the accident, the GMC Envoy, was uninsured. Consequently, the appellate court continued, it had to determine whether the AAA-insured Honda Civic – a parked vehicle – had been “involved in the accident.”

The appellate court then rejected Citizens' argument that because Sean was unloading groceries from the parked vehicle, the exception set forth in MCL 500.3106(1)(b) applied and compelled the conclusion that the Honda Civic had been “involved in the accident.” It decided that the “loading and unloading” exception found at MCL 500.3106(1)(b) did not apply to this case.

The appellate court reasoned that although Sean did have physical contact with the groceries, that physical contact had not directly resulted in the injury. Instead, the appellate court continued, the injuries “were the direct result of being struck by the GMC Envoy.” Moreover, it said, the parked AAA-insured vehicle was “not in use as a motor vehicle” but, rather, was like “other stationary roadside objects that can be involved in vehicle accidents.” It stated:

The Honda Civic was no more involved in the accident than a bench would be, had Sean been picking up a bag of groceries from that type of common stationary object. Because the requirements of MCL 500.3106(1)(b) were not met, the parked Honda Civic was not “involved in the accident.”

Accordingly, it concluded, AAA, the insurer of the Honda Civic, was not obligated to pay PIP benefits (but PIP benefits were obtainable through the assigned claims plan, i.e., through Citizens).

The case is Banks v. AAA Ins. Co., No. 327386 (Mich. Ct.App. Sept. 15, 2016).