|
No. 119187
| Nickolas
Rednour, |
|
James
A. Iafrate (734) 994-0200 |
|
Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
|
| vs (Appeal
from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
|
(Oakland
-- Jourdan, J.)
|
|
|
| Hastings Mutual Insurance Company, |
|
J. Mark Cooney (248) 355-4141 |
|
Defendant-Appellant.
|
|
Keith P. Felty |
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Background
Nickolas
Rednour was driving a vehicle owned by another person and insured by
Hastings Mutual Insurance Company. A tire went flat, and Rednour began
changing the tire. As he walked toward the back of the vehicle, he was
struck by a drunk driver and pinned between the two vehicles. The accident
occurred in Ohio. When Rednour was hit, he was only six inches away
from the insured vehicle. Under Michigan's no-fault law, personal injury
protection (PIP) benefits are available to several categories of persons
injured in vehicle accidents outside Michigan, including "an occupant
of a vehicle involved in the accident whose owner or registrant was
insured." Rednour sued Hastings Mutual after it refused to pay
PIP benefits under its no-fault policy. Hastings Mutual moved to dismiss
the case, arguing that Rednour was not eligible for PIP benefits because
he was not an "occupant" of the insured vehicle when he was
injured. Rednour responded in part that Hastings Mutual was bound to
provide PIP benefits under the definition of "occupying" in
its no-fault policy. The policy defines "occupying" as "in,
upon, getting in, on, out or off." That definition is broader that
the Michigan statute's "occupant" definition, Rednour argued.
Because he was so close to the car right before he was hit, and because
he was immediately pinned against the vehicle, he was "occupying"
the car, Rednour contended. Oakland County Circuit Judge J. Phillip
Jourdan dismissed the case, finding that the policy was not broader
than the statute. The Court of Appeals reversed in a published per curiam
opinion, holding that the definition of "occupying" in the
defendant's policy was broader than the meaning of the term "occupant"
in the statute. "Plaintiff was within six inches of the vehicle
... so as to be pinned against it upon impact and surely within the
context of 'in, upon, getting in, on, out or off' the vehicle,"
the Court of Appeals stated. Hastings Mutual appeals.
|
