RORY WILLIAMS V CITIZENS INSUR CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RORY WILLIAMS,
UNPUBLISHED
February 25, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 212686
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 97-059895-NF
CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Smolenski and Talbot, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) in this action for first-party benefits under the no-fault act, MCL
500.3101 et seq.; MSA 24.13101 et seq. We affirm.
Plaintiff injured his hand while helping his father load a riding lawnmower onto a trailer. Plaintiff
and his father planned to hitch the trailer onto a parked pickup truck once the lawnmower was loaded.
Plaintiff stood at the front of the trailer and steadied “the tongue” of the trailer with his hand. As
plaintiff’s father drove the lawnmower onto the trailer, the lawnmower lurched forward, causing the front
end of the trailer to fall to the ground. As a result, plaintiff’s hand became pinned between the tongue
and the ground.
Plaintiff filed the instant action after defendant denied his claim for no-fault benefits. Defendant
moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff was not entitled to benefits under the no-fault act
because (1) neither the trailer nor the lawnmower qualified as motor vehicles under the act, and (2) the
pickup truck, the only motor vehicle involved, was “parked” when the accident occurred and none of
the exceptions to the parked vehicle exclusion applied. The trial court granted summary disposition for
the reasons specified in defendant’s motion.
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Smith
v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446, 454; 597 NW2d 28 (1999). In reviewing a motion brought
-1
pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), the court considers the documentary evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Id., quoting Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362; 547
NW2d 314 (1996). Summary disposition is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 454-455.
Plaintiff concedes that the trailer involved in the incident is not a motor vehicle as defined in
MCL 500.3101(2)(e); MSA 24.13101(2)(e). Plaintiff nonetheless argues that he is entitled to no-fault
benefits because his injury fit within the exception to the parked vehicle exclusion contained in MCL
500.3106(1)(b); MSA 24.13106(1)(b), which provides.
(1) Accidental bodily injury does not arise out of the ownership, operation,
maintenance, or use of a parked vehicle as a motor vehicle unless any of the following
occur:
***
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), the injury was a direct result of
physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle, while the
equipment was being operated or used, or property being lifted onto or lowered
from the vehicle in the loading or unloading process. [MCL 500.3106(1)(b); MSA
24.13106(1)(b) (emphasis added).]1
Plaintiff maintains that the exception applies because he was in physical contact with the trailer
and was in the process of loading the trailer onto the pickup truck when the accident occurred. We
disagree. Subsection 3106(1)(b) embodies two distinct exceptions to the parking exclusion, namely (1)
when the injury is the direct result of physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the
vehicle, while the equipment was being operated or used, or (2) when the injury is the direct result of
property being lifted onto or lowered from the vehicle in the loading or unloading process. See also
Winters v Automobile Club of Michigan, 433 Mich 446, 458, 460; 446 NW2d 132 (1989); Arnold
v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 84 Mich App 75, 77-80; 269 NW2d 311 (1978). With regard to the latter
exception argued here, activity that is merely preparatory to the actual loading or unloading of the
vehicle may not be a basis for awarding benefits under this subsection. See Block v Citizens Ins Co of
America, 111 Mich App 106, 109; 314 NW2d 536 (1981).2
In this case, it was undisputed that the accident occurred when the lawnmower was being
loaded onto the trailer. While plaintiff testified that the ultimate goal was to hitch the trailer onto the
pickup truck, there was no evidence that he was injured while the trailer was “being lifted onto or
lowered from” the pickup truck in the loading process. Winters, supra at 460. Indeed, the process of
moving the trailer to the truck3 and hitching it to the truck was never attempted in this case because
plaintiff was injured when the trailer, not the truck, was being loaded. Under these circumstances, the
act of loading the trailer with the lawnmower was merely preparatory to the act of hitching the trailer to
the pickup truck. Block, supra at 109. Accordingly, the exception to
-2
the parked vehicle exclusion set forth in subsection 3106(1)(b) is inapplicable, and the trial court
properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition.
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
1
In order to recover benefits under § 3106, the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) his conduct fits one
of the three exceptions of subsection 3106(1), (2) the injury arose out of the ownership, operation,
maintenance, or use of the parked motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, and (3) the injury had a causal
relationship to the parked motor vehicle that is more than incidental, fortuitous, or but for. Putkamer v
Transamerica Ins Corp of America, 454 Mich 626, 635-636; 563 NW2d 683 (1997).
2
Plaintiff relies upon Bell v FJ Boutell Driveaway Co, 141 Mich App 802; 369 NW2d 231 (1985),
to argue that the terms “loading and unloading” in subsection (1)(b) should be interpreted broadly to
include preparatory activity. Bell, however, is inapposite because it construes MCL 500.3106(2)(a);
MSA 24.13106(2)(a), a provision that deals exclusively with the coordination of no-fault and worker’s
compensation benefits. See Perez v Farmers Ins Exchange, 225 Mich App 731, 735; 571 NW2d
770 (1997).
3
While plaintiff admitted that the trailer was not connected to truck at the time of injury, the exact
distance between the trailer and the truck is not entirely clear from the record. Plaintiff testified that
when the trailer was being loaded with the lawnmower it was parked on some grass “right off the end of
the driveway.” In a diagram plaintiff drew at deposition, it appears that the truck was parked on the
driveway somewhere close to the end of it.
-3
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.
