December 15, 2025
In a recently published decision, Fremont Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., the Court of Appeals affirmed that a parked vehicle is not “involved” in an accident for purposes of property protection insurance (“PPI”) benefits under MCL 500.3125.
Jeffery Gibbs fell asleep behind the wheel of his vehicle and struck Melissa Wells’ parked Ford Escape pushing it into a Hungry Howie’s. Kaleigh Gibson, who had driven the Escape to the Hungry Howie’s, later signed an affidavit stating that the Escape was properly parked in a marked space and that she “was not occupying, entering, or alighting from the Escape at the time it was hit by the other vehicle.”
Fremont Insurance Company and Frankenmuth Insurance Company provided property insurance to the building owner and the pizzeria. After paying approximately $64,000 in benefits, they sought no-fault PPI benefits from State Farm which insured the Escape. State Farm moved for summary disposition, relying on Gibson’s affidavit to argue that the Escape was not “involved in the accident” within the meaning of Michigan’s no-fault statute and therefore did not fall under MCL 500.3125’s order of priority.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed that the Escape was not “involved in the accident” under MCL 500.3125, analyzing three Michigan Supreme Court decisions. In Miller v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 411 Mich 638 (1981), the Court addressed the potential tension between PIP coverage for maintenance of a vehicle under MCL 500.3105 and the exclusion for injuries involving a “parked” vehicle under MCL 500.3106. The Miller Court avoided defining the term by concluding instead that the issue “should not be resolved solely by focusing on the term ‘parked.’ ” The Court observed that the exceptions in § 3106(1) were designed to capture circumstances in which the injury resulted from the vehicle’s character as a motor vehicle rather than its status as a stationary object and concluded that parked vehicles are generally like other stationary objects.
In Heard v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 414 Mich 139 (1982), the Court noted that the exclusions from PPI benefits in MCL 500.3123 sometimes turn on whether a vehicle is “involved” in an accident. The Heard Court concluded that when a vehicle is parked, it is deemed not to be in use as a motor vehicle, and, for the purposes of the act, it is considered equivalent to a gasoline pump, the wall of a service station, or a tree. Id. In Turner v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 448 Mich 38 (1995), the Court concluded that “[f]or a vehicle to have been ‘involved in the accident’ requires, at a minimum, that the vehicle be used as a motor vehicle at the time of the accident.”
Applying the decisions in Miller, Heard, and Turner, the Fremont Court concluded that the Escape was parked and unoccupied when Gibbs’ vehicle hit it. As a parked vehicle, it was deemed not to be in use as a motor vehicle and was therefore the same as any other stationary object, such as a tree, signpost, or boulder. The Court further reasoned that the Escape was not being used as a motor vehicle because it did not “actively, as opposed to passively, contribute to the accident.” The Escape was merely struck and propelled forward, which was entirely passive. Therefore, the Escape was not “involved in the accident” under MCL 500.3125, and State Farm was not liable for PPI benefits.