AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE CO V MICHIGAN MUTUAL INSURANCE CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 13, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
MICHIGAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
No. 189992
Menominee Circuit Court
LC No. 95-7377 CZ
Defendant-Appellee.
-andROBERT AHRNDT, et al,
Defendants
Before: Corrigan, C.J., and Young and M.J. Talbot*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals by right summary disposition of its declaratory claim for contribution or
indemnification against defendant vehicle insurer. Robert Ahrndt, an employee of James Johnston d/b/a
Johnston’s Crane Service, was injured in the course of his employment while assisting in the loading of a
steel catwalk onto a flatbed truck owned by R. Becker Enterprises (“RBE”) and driven by David
Linsmeier.
The catwalk was initially loaded, but did not fit the truck trailer properly, and it was unloaded
and placed on the ground. Ahrndt was then tasked by his employer to remove the legs from the
catwalk with a cutting torch. Overlooking the fact that the catwalk was standing on those legs, Ahrndt
followed instructions, the catwalk toppled over onto him, and he was injured. Ahrndt then sued RBE
and Linsmeier for negligence. Plaintiff, as general liability insurer of RBE, assumed the defense of that
action, and asked Michigan Mutual, RBE’s no fault insurer, to either take over or share the burdens of
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
the defense and any eventual liability. Defendant declined, and this action ensued. Pursuant to MCR
7.214(E), this case is being decided without oral argument.
Plaintiff ’s reliance on Celina Mutual Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co, 136 Mich App 315; 355
NW2d 916 (1984), is misplaced, as in that case the injury occurred while property was being loaded
onto a motor vehicle. Similarly, with respect to the “preparation for loading or unloading” cases, the
injuries involve the injured person preparing the vehicle to be loaded or unloaded. Bell v F J Boutell
Driveway Co, 141 Mich App 802; 369 NW2d 231 (1985); Teman v Transamerica Ins Co of
Michigan, 123 Mich App 262; 333 NW2d 244 (1983). Where, as here, the cargo has been removed
from the vehicle and set on the ground, and the injury occurs by virtue of something being done to the
cargo itself, even if it involves preparation for reloading the cargo, such injury does not arise out of the
ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. Dowdy v Motorland Ins Co, 97 Mich App 242;
293 NW2d 782 (1980). The Dowdy result was approved in Celina Mutual Ins Co, supra. 136
Mich App at 319-320. Accordingly, where the Michigan Mutual policy provides insurance only for
bodily injury resulting from ownership, maintenance or use of a covered vehicle, such insurance has no
application to the claims made in the u
nderlying suit by Robert Ahrndt against the insured, RBE and
David Linsmeier.
Affirmed.
/s/ Maura D. Corrigan
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
