David L Kull v. United Services Automobile Association ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             STATE OF MICHIGAN
    COURT OF APPEALS
    DAVID L. KULL,                                                       UNPUBLISHED
    January 31, 2017
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v                                                                    No. 329748
    Livingston Circuit Court
    UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE                                           LC No. 15-028492-NF
    ASSOCIATION,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and STEPHENS and O’BRIEN, JJ.
    O’BRIEN, J. (dissenting).
    I respectfully dissent. The dispositive issue in this case is whether plaintiff’s injury was
    closely related to the vehicle’s transportational function. In my view, it clearly was not. As our
    Supreme Court has made clear, the proper inquiry is whether the vehicle was being used for a
    transportational purpose, not whether it was being used for an intended purpose. McKenzie v
    Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 
    458 Mich. 214
    , 225-226; 580 NW2d 424 (1998) (“Accordingly, we hold
    that whether an injury arises out of the use of a motor vehicle ‘as a motor vehicle’ under § 3105
    turns on whether the injury is closely related to the transportation function of motor vehicles.”).
    Here, I agree that preparing to unload a boat represents an intended purpose of a boat trailer, but
    I cannot agree that preparing to unload a boat represents a transportational purpose of a boat
    trailer. In reaching this holding, our Supreme Court expressly overruled its earlier decision in
    Bialochowski v Cross Concrete Pumping Co, 
    428 Mich. 219
    ; 407 NW2d 355 (1987), and
    explained that the unloading of a cement truck did not represent a transportational purpose of the
    truck. 
    McKenzie, 458 Mich. at 223-224
    (“Where the Legislature explicitly limited coverage
    under § 3105 to injuries arising out of a particular use of motor vehicles—use ‘as a motor
    vehicle’—a decision finding coverage for injuries arising out of any other use, e.g., to pump
    cement, is contrary to the language of the statute.”). If unloading cement does not represent a
    transportational purpose of a cement truck, how can preparing to unload a boat represent a
    transportational purpose of a boat trailer? Our Supreme Court’s decision in McKenzie is binding.
    Therefore, I must dissent.
    /s/ Colleen A. O'Brien
    -1-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 329748

Filed Date: 1/31/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/1/2017