 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rednour v. Hastings Mutual Insurance Co.5/30/2003
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
We granted leave to appeal to consider the proper definition of the word "occupying" in the no-fault automobile-insurance policy at issue in this case. We hold that plaintiff was not "occupying" the vehicle as that term is defined in the policy because he was outside the vehicle and approximately six inches from it when the other automobile struck him. We thus reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's decision.
I. Underlying facts and procedural posture Plaintiff was driving a friend's car in Ohio. The left rear tire of the vehicle became flat. To change the tire, plaintiff left the car, loosened the lug nuts, and began to walk toward the rear of the car. An oncoming automobile then struck plaintiff and threw him against the car he had been driving, injuring him. Plaintiff admitted that he had not been touching his friend's car and that he had been approximately six inches from it when the other vehicle struck him.
The vehicle plaintiff had been driving was insured under Michigan's no-fault insurance act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., with defendant Hastings Mutual Insurance Company. Plaintiff contended that he was "occupying" the vehicle as that term had been defined in defendant's policy and that he thus was entitled to personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. After defendant denied the claim, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking payment of the benefits. Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) on the ground that plaintiff had not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he had been "occupying" the insured vehicle when he was injured. The trial court granted defendant's motion.
On review, the Court of Appeals reversed. It treated the word "occupying" as ambiguous and construed it against defendant, the drafter of the policy. On that basis, the Court concluded that plaintiff was "occupying" the vehicle within the meaning of that term in the policy.
Defendant filed an application for leave to appeal, which we granted. 467 Mich 869 (2002).
II. Standard of review
We review de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Hinkle v Wayne Co Clerk, 467 Mich 337, 340; 654 NW2d 315 (2002). The interpretation of a contract presents a question of law that we also review de novo. Archambo v Lawyers Title Ins Corp, 466 Mich 402, 408; 646 NW2d 170 (2002).
III. Discussion
A. Statutory and contractual provisions The no-fault act sets forth the circumstances in which benefits are available for out-of-state accidents. MCL 500.3111 states:
Personal protection insurance benefits are payable for accidental bodily injury suffered in an accident occurring out of this state, if the accident occurs within the United States, its territories and possessions or in Canada, and the person whose injury is the basis of the claim was at the time of the accident a named insured under a personal protection insurance policy, his spouse, a relative of either domiciled in the same household or an occupant of a vehicle involved in the accident whose owner or registrant was insured under a personal protection insurance policy or has provided security approved by the secretary of state under subsection (4) of section 3101. [Emphasis added.]
Plaintiff was not a named insured or a spouse or relative of a named insured. Thus, the statute provides that to obtain PIP benefits, plaintiff must qualify as an "occupant" of an insured vehicle involved in the accident. The no-fault act does not define the word "occupant."
The insurance policy at issue states:
A.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|