By Lee Dryden
BridgeTower Media Newswires
DETROIT-An insurer doesn't have to reimburse another insurer for benefits paid to a woman when she was injured exiting a motorhome two hours after it was parked, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled.
In Progressive Michigan Insurance Co. v. Brenner, Progressive paid $148,089 in personal protection insurance benefits as a result of Kristine Brenner's injuries and sought pro rata recoupment from Fremont, the insurer of two other vehicles owned by Brenner and her husband.
The Montmorency County Circuit Court determined that Progressive was entitled to partial recoupment for the PIP benefits after concluding that Brenner was using her motorhome as a motor vehicle at the time of her injury, entitling her to the PIP benefits under Michigan's No-Fault Act.
But the appeals court reversed and remanded the case, stating she was not using the motorhome as a vehicle when the mishap occurred.
The Nov. 22 unpublished per curiam opinion was issued by Judges Mark T. Boonstra and Michael F. Gadola. Judge Douglas B. Shapiro concurred in the result only.
In June 2012, Brenner parked her motorhome in the driveway of her daughter's home and planned to sleep in it that night.
"About two hours after she arrived at her daughter's house, after making four trips in and out of the motor home, and after eating lunch in the motor home, Kristine decided to retrieve a bag of baby clothes she brought for her granddaughter from the motor home," the opinion stated.
"While Kristine was in the act of exiting the motor home with the bag of clothes, the electronic step, which should have extended automatically when she opened the door, failed to fully extend. As Kristine stepped down out of the motor home toward the missing step, she fell and sustained injuries."
After Progressive sought to be reimbursed for the PIP benefits, Fremont "took the position that Kristine was not entitled to PIP benefits under Michigan law, so it was not obligated to reimburse Progressive for any benefits mistakenly paid."
The trial court disagreed and Fremont was required to partially reimburse Progressive.
On appeal, Fremont argued that the trial court erred because Brenner was not using the motorhome as a motor vehicle at the time she was injured.
The appeals court cited the 1997 Michigan Supreme Court case, Putkamer v. Transamerica Ins Corp of America, which set requirements that a claimant must satisfy to demonstrate entitlement to PIP benefits "for an injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a parked vehicle."
The dispute centered on the requirement that the motorhome was being used "as a motor vehicle" when the injury occurred. As there were no factual disputes about the sequence of events, it was proper for the trial court to decide, as a matter of law, whether Brenner was using the motorhome as a motor vehicle at the time of injury, the opinion stated.
The trial court concluded that Brenner was indeed doing so because she was still unloading the vehicle, which was "within the vehicle's continued transportational function."
The Court of Appeals panel cited the high court's 1998 decision in McKenzie v. Auto Club Ins Ass'n that "the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle occurs when the vehicle's use is 'closely related to [its] transportational function and only when engaged in that function.'"
Brenner testified that the motorhome was "fully-functional" with a refrigerator, television, utensils, bedding, toiletries and a generator she planned to turn on that evening.
"Considering the facts of this case, we conclude that, at the time of the accident, Kristine had ceased using the motor home in a manner closely related to its transportational function and was instead using it as a housing facility," the opinion stated.
Progressive argued that "the process of loading materials for transport or unloading materials at a destination constitutes use of a vehicle consistent with its transportational function, just as entering and exiting a vehicle are part of its transportational function."
The panel disagreed with the trial court's conclusion that the vehicle was still being unloaded - even though it had been parked for hours - "so the transportational function of the motor home continued up through the time of Kristine's accident."
Evidence shows Brenner used the motorhome "in a manner closely related to its transportational function" to get to her daughter's house, which included entering and exiting the vehicle, according to the opinion.
"Once this transportational purpose was fulfilled, however, some two hours before the accident, Kristine began using the motor home as a housing facility," the opinion stated. "Kristine explained that after she parked the motor home in her daughter's driveway, she intended to leave it there for the night and to sleep in it. She did not intend to use the motor home for travel again until the following day.
"Under the facts presented, there is simply not a sufficiently close nexus between Kristine's injury and her use of the motor home as a motor vehicle to justify her recovery of PIP benefits."
The Michigan Supreme Court is mulling a case with a question of whether an injury was related to a vehicle's transportational function.
In Kemp v. Farm Bureau General Ins. Co. of Michigan, plaintiff Daniel Kemp injured his right calf and lower back when falling in his driveway while taking personal items out of his truck in September 2012.
A split Court of Appeals panel affirmed the Wayne County Circuit Court in an unpublished opinion, stating the injury had nothing to do with the truck's transportational function.
The high court heard oral arguments on the matter on Oct. 6, asking whether the plaintiff's injury is closely related to the transportational function of his motor vehicle and if the injury had a "causal relationship to his parked motor vehicle that is more than incidental, fortuitous, or but for."
The plaintiff's side argued that the injury is clearly related to the vehicle's transportational function as Kemp was removing a briefcase, bag of clothing and thermos when he was injured upon returning home from work. The defense countered that, in the parked vehicle exception to no-fault liability, the Legislature didn't intend to cover scenarios such as injuries occurring when pulling items out of a trunk or off a seat.
Published: Tue, Dec 27, 2016
