In Bellmore v Friendly Oil Change, Inc and State Farm Mutual Auto Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___ (5/12/22), the Court of Appeals released its published opinion addressing whether the Plaintiff’s injuries arose out of the maintenance of a motor vehicle, and whether the vehicle was parked in a way to cause unreasonable risk of injury. In this case, the Plaintiff went to Friend Oil Change, Inc. to have her oil and filters changed. After the technician began working on her vehicle, she was asked to look at a filter the technician believed needed changing. Plaintiff followed the technician toward her vehicle and she saw the service pit area which was bordered by a yellow shaded area. As she got close to the front of her vehicle, she slipped and fell into the service pit.
In her recorded statement after the accident, Plaintiff said she did not slip or trip on anything before she fell. She also indicated she had no contact with her vehicle before she fell. However, in her deposition, she testified that she was reaching for, but not touching, her vehicle when she fell and sustained injuries. After filing suit seeking personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under the No Fault Act, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary disposition arguing that her injuries (1) arose out of the maintenance of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle MCL 500.3105(1), and/or (2) that the vehicle was parked in such a way as to cause an unreasonable risk of bodily injury which occurred (MCL 500.3106(1)(a).
State Farm filed a cross motion for summary disposition arguing that Plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits because she was not performing maintenance on her vehicle at the time she sustained injuries. Additionally, the vehicle was not parked in such a way as to cause unreasonable risk of bodily injury which occurred. The trial court agreed with the Plaintiff that she was engaged in the maintenance of her vehicle at the time of her injury, and granted Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary disposition. The trial court further found the vehicle had been parked in a way that created an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiff. State Farm appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case.
At the outset, the Court of Appeals agreed with Plaintiff that maintenance was being performed on her vehicle at the time she sustained her injuries, relying on prior cases in the Court’s historical interpretation of the term “maintenance” which has been construed liberally to advance the purposes of the No Fault Act. However, the Court did not agree that the Plaintiff’s claimed injuries arose out of the maintenance of her vehicle. The Court considered the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Thornton v Allstate Ins Co, 425 Mich 643, 659-660; 391 NW2d 320 (1986), holding that the “arising out of” language requires that there be a causal connection between the injuries and the use of the motor vehicle as a motor vehicle that is more than incidental, fortuitous, or “but for.” Similarly, there must be a causal connection between the injuries and the maintenance of the vehicle in this case that is more than incidental, fortuitous, or “but for.” Woodring v Phoenix Ins Co, 501 Mich 883; 901 NW2d 887 (2017).
The Bellmore Court found that Plaintiff’s fall was not a direct result of the maintenance being performed on her vehicle. It was merely incidental to the circumstances. Plaintiff failed to pay attention to where she was walking which caused her to fall into the service pit. She did not fall as a result of being asked to look at the vehicle. Even if she slipped on something, there was no evidence that it came from the filter or the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, the connection between her injuries and the maintenance of her motor vehicle was no more than “but for,” incidental or fortuitous.
The Court next turned its attention to Plaintiff’s argument in the alternative under MCL 500.3106(1)(a) that her injuries arose out of the use of her parked vehicle as a motor vehicle and that it was parked in such a way as to cause unreasonable risk of bodily injury which occurred. The Court looked to the Supreme Court’s decision in Woodring, 325 Mich App at 120-121, which found that “a vehicle is not necessarily parked just because it is stopped, halted, standing, or otherwise not presently in motion.” Given the Plaintiff’s argument that the vehicle was not positioned appropriately over the service pit, the Bellmore Court found she was actually contesting the positioning of her vehicle over the pit, and not the vehicle’s parked status. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was not “parked” for purposes of the No Fault Act, and therefore, her injuries did not arise out of the use of a parked vehicle as a motor vehicle under MCL 500.3106(1). Plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits under the parked vehicle exception. The Bellmore Court reiterated that the No Fault Act was not designed to compensate all injuries occurring in or around a motor vehicle accident.
Check out our News & Events page to see what’s happening at GLM and find out about our upcoming seminars.
Sarah Nadeau, Editor of The Garan Report Publication, is a Shareholder in our Detroit Office. Sarah can be reached at 313.446.1530 or snadeau@garanlucow.com