COURT CONSIDERS WHETHER MOTORCYCLE, OR MOTORCYCLIST, MUST MAKE CONTACT TO BE "INVOLVED"

Lino Taormina

Pursuant to MCL 500.3114(5), in pertinent part, a person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident that shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle while an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim personal protection insurance benefits first from the insurer of the owner or registrant of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. The statute, however, does not define “involved.”

In the unpublished opinion in State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Protective Ins Co (Docket No. 355532), the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed the definition of “involved” and found that where contact occurs between a motorcyclist and a vehicle, resulting in injuries to the motorcyclist, the vehicle is “involved.”

On October 27, 2014, a Buick Lacrosse insured by Plaintiff was driving northbound on Waverly Road in Lansing, Michigan. A motorcycle driven by Robert Rader was traveling eastbound on Delta River Drive. Rader ran a red light at the corner of the two roads and his motorcycle struck the Buick Lacrosse in the intersection. Rader was subsequently thrown from his motorcycle and his body collided with a third vehicle that was waiting at the light traveling westbound on Delta River Road. The third vehicle was a FedEx van insured by defendant. Rader suffered injuries as a result of the accident and plaintiff paid Rader’s PIP benefits.

In August 21, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant, asserting that it had paid $1,264,428.36 in PIP benefits to Radar and, because Rader’s body struck the defendant-insured FedEx vehicle following the collision, the defendant-insured vehicle was considered “involved” in the accident such that defendant is liable to plaintiff for half of the PIP benefits plaintiff had paid.

The trial court agreed with plaintiff, granting summary disposition in plaintiff’s favor. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. The Court of Appeals noted that no published decision specifically addressed the situation before it – contact between a motorcyclist and another vehicle. The Court found, however, that the appropriate test to determine whether the FedEx van was “involved” in the accident was whether Rader or his motorcycle made contact with the FedEx vehicle, relying upon Auto Club Ins Ass’n v State Auto Mut Ins Co, 258 Mich App 328, 339; 671 NW2d 132 (2003).

The Court clarified that if neither the motorcycle nor its driver made contact with the FedEx van, the appropriate test would then be to determine whether the FedEx van’s role was active rather than passive, relying upon Bachman v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 135 Mich App 641, 644; 354 NW2d 292 (1984) and Turner v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 448 Mich 22, 39; 528 NW2d 681 (1995).

Because Rader’s body contacted the defendant-insured FedEx van in this case, the Court of Appeals found the van was “involved” in the accident and thus, the defendant is liable for half of Rader’s PIP benefits under MCL 500.3114(5).