MONA LISA FRAZIER V ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MONA LISA FRAZIER,
UNPUBLISHED
December 21, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 292149
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 2006-003787-NF
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
MONA LISA FRAZIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 293904
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 2006-003787-NF
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: WILDER, P.J., and CAVANAGH and M. J. KELLY, JJ.
WILDER, P.J. (concurring).
I concur in the lead opinion’s reasoning and result affirming the trial court’s refusal to
grant defendant’s motion for directed verdict because the jury could have found that the
“alighting from the vehicle” exception, MCL 500.3106(1)(c), applied to the circumstances
presented in this case. However, I respectfully disagree with the lead opinion’s conclusion that a
passenger door constitutes “equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle” for purposes of
MCL 500.3106(1)(b). In Amy v MIC Gen Ins Corp, 258 Mich App 94, 127; 670 NW2d 228
(2003), rev’d on other grounds Stewart v State, 471 Mich 692; 692 NW2d 376 (2004), a
motorcyclist was involved in a fatal collision with a parked vehicle’s rear bumper and taillights.
The motorcyclist’s survivor claimed that the injury was a result of direct physical contact with
the bumper and taillights, and these parts constituted permanently mounted equipment. Id. This
Court stated:
“[b]umpers and taillights are defined as integral parts of a motor vehicle. Were
this panel to adopt the argument that ‘equipment’ within the meaning of MCL
-1-
500.3106(1)(b) includes structures like bumpers or lights, the exception would
swallow up the exclusion and make the exclusion nugatory.” [Id. at 127-128.]
I would conclude that, like bumpers and taillights, a passenger door is an integral part of a motor
vehicle, and is distinguishable from other secondary equipment mounted on vehicles, which this
Court has determined to fall within the MCL 500.3106(1)(b) exception, including a hook
attached to a tow truck, Winter v Automobile Club of Michigan, 433 Mich 446, 459; 446 NW2d
132 (1989), an auger system on a grain delivery truck, Drake v Citizens Ins Co, 270 Mich App
22, 27; 715 NW2d 387 (2006), and a rear door on a trailer attached to a semi, Gunsell v Ryan,
236 Mich App 204, 210 n 5; 599 NW2d 767 (1999).
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
