Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


JAMES SNIDER, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED December 5, 2000

No. 219109 Grand Traverse Circuit Court LC No. 98-017796-NF

Before: Neff, P.J., and Murphy and Griffin, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, his no-fault insurer. We affirm. Plaintiff, a spectator sitting in a lawn chair at a fireworks display, was struck by shrapnel from an explosion of fireworks launched from an uninsured flatbed trailer. In this lawsuit, plaintiff alleged he was entitled to first-party no-fault benefits and uninsured motorist coverage from defendant. In response to defendant's motion for summary disposition, the trial court ruled as a matter of law that the flatbed trailer that held the fireworks was not a "land motor vehicle," as that term was used in the parties' no-fault insurance policy, and thus the uninsured motorist coverage did not apply. On reconsideration, the court further ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to first-party no-fault benefits because his injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.1 The trial court's decision and order references both MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). However, the court did not clarify which subrule formed the basis for its decision. Given that the court's ruling turned on interpretation of the insurance contract between the parties, we analyze this dismissal under the latter provision. This Court reviews de novo a grant of summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Morales v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 458 Mich 288, 294; 582 NW2d 776 (1998). We must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and any other
1

The court noted that its summary ruling on this latter issue was consistent with its previous decision on the same issue in a similar case arising out of the same fireworks explosion.

-1-

evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion, and grant the benefit of the doubt to the opposing party. Id. Our task is to review the lower court record in favor of the nonmoving party and decide whether a genuine issue of material fact exists to warrant a trial. Id. Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in holding that he was not entitled to firstparty no-fault benefits. Pursuant to the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq.; MSA 24.13101 et seq., individuals cannot recover no-fault benefits for bodily injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident unless their injuries arose out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. MCL 500.3105(1); MSA 24.13105(1). Generally, injuries that arise out of the use of a parked vehicle are not covered under the no-fault act. MCL 500.3106(1); MSA 24.13106(1); Yost v League General Ins Co, 213 Mich App 183, 184; 539 NW2d 568 (1995). The rationale underlying the parking exclusion is that injuries involving parked cars do not typically involve the motor vehicle in its use as a motor vehicle. Miller v Auto-Owner's Ins Co, 411 Mich 633, 639; 309 NW2d 544 (1981). Certain exceptions to the parking exclusion do allow recovery under limited circumstances: (1) Accidental bodily injury does not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a parked vehicle as a motor vehicle unless any of the following occur: (a) The vehicle was parked in such a way as to cause an unreasonable risk of 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. [MCL

Download JAMES SNIDER V STATE FARM MUT AUTO INS CO.pdf

Michigan Law