 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Auto Club Insurance Association v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co.9/2/2003
d car's lane, and because its driver was not "doing anything other than probably turning her wheels and having her signal on." Stonewall, supra, 128 Mich App 310. None of these cases hold that a vehicle that actually collided with the injured person or the injured person's vehicle while occupied by the person was not involved in the accident.
While no case clearly states that physical contact between the injured party and a vehicle renders the vehicle involved in the accident under MCL 500.3114(5) and obligates the insurer to pay personal injury protection benefits, there is no case where there was physical contact between the injured party and a vehicle where the vehicle was found not to be involved. The assumption appears to be that a question is raised regarding involvement, and analysis under Turner becomes necessary, only when there is no physical contact between the injured party and the vehicle.
We reject SAMIC'S argument that even if Bateman hit Karel's car before sliding into the opposing lane of traffic, the Karel vehicle was still not involved because it was passively waiting to pass through the construction zone and did not contribute to the accident in any way. If the facts are as ACIA alleges, both Karel's and Embury's vehicles stand in the same relation to the accident. There is no basis on which to distinguish the two vehicles. Both vehicles were at a standstill waiting for traffic to clear a construction zone when Bateman collided with them.
Nevertheless, fault or passivity has no place in the analysis. The question is whether the vehicle was involved, not whether the involvement was innocent. Regardless of the driver's lack of fault, or the vehicle's lack of movement, the Embury vehicle contributed to the accident and became involved when it was struck by Bateman. The Karel vehicle, if hit by Bateman, would also have contributed to the accident and become involved when Bateman hit it and separated from his motorcycle or skidded into the opposing lane of traffic. To conclude that the Embury and Karel vehicles were not involved because their contribution was passive rather than active, although there was an actual collision between these vehicles and the motorcycle, would be to redefine the concept of involvement to exclude a large category of vehicles that was heretofore regarded, apparently even by insurers themselves, as being involved in the accidents. We decline to do so.
In sum, we conclude that there was a genuine issue of material fact whether Bateman struck the Karel vehicle, and that if he did, the Karel vehicle was "involved" under MCL 500.3114(5), and both ACIA and SAMIC would be equally responsible for paying PIP benefits under MCL 500.3114(6).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Helene N. White
Joel P. Hoekstra
E. Thomas Fitzgerald
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|