McKenzie v. Auto Club Insurance Ass'n
580 N.W.2d 424, 458 Mich. 214 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury does not arise out of the "use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle" under Michigan's no-fault act unless the injury is closely related to the vehicle's transportational function. The use of a vehicle for other purposes, such as for sleeping accommodations, does not qualify for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits.
Facts:
- While on a hunting trip, plaintiff McKenzie and a companion, Hughie McKenzie, slept in a camper/trailer attached to the back of the plaintiff's pickup truck.
- The camper/trailer was equipped with a propane-fueled, forced-air heater.
- Due to poor ventilation or improper exhaust, carbon monoxide fumes from the heater leaked into the camper/trailer while the men were sleeping.
- The fumes overcame both men, causing nonfatal asphyxiation.
- They were discovered the following day and recovered after being hospitalized.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff McKenzie filed a suit in a Michigan trial court for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits against his insurer, Auto Club Insurance Association.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing the injury was not covered.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion and granted summary disposition for the plaintiff.
- Defendant, as appellant, appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellee.
- Defendant, as appellant, sought review from the Michigan Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injury from carbon monoxide poisoning, sustained while sleeping in a parked camper/trailer heated by a propane unit, arise out of the 'use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle' for purposes of receiving personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under Michigan's no-fault act?
Opinions:
Majority - Taylor, J.
No. An injury from carbon monoxide poisoning sustained while sleeping in a parked camper/trailer does not arise out of the 'use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle' because such use is not closely related to the vehicle's transportational function. The statutory phrase 'as a motor vehicle' is a specific limitation intended to distinguish transportational uses from other possible uses, such as a housing facility, advertising display, or construction base. Here, the camper/trailer was being used as sleeping accommodations, a function too far removed from its transportational purpose. The court overrules prior cases like Bialochowski and Koole that found coverage for injuries arising from any 'intended use' of a multipurpose vehicle, finding that approach eviscerates the distinction required by the statute's plain language. The court finds its 'transportational function' test is consistent with cases like Thornton, where assaults in vehicles were not covered because they were not closely related to the vehicle's transportational function.
Dissenting - Cavanagh, J.
Yes. The injury does arise out of the 'use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle' because the vehicle was being used for one of its intended purposes. Relying on the precedent set in Bialochowski, a multipurpose vehicle is used 'as a motor vehicle' when used for any of its intended functions, and providing sleeping accommodations is an intended function of a camper. The majority engages in judicial activism by inventing a 'transportational function' limitation that is not present in the statutory text, effectively rewriting the law. The proper analysis involves two steps: first, determining if the vehicle was used for an intended purpose, and second, determining if there was a sufficient causal connection between that use and the injury. Here, both steps are satisfied, as the plaintiff was using the camper as intended and the injury was caused by a malfunction of the vehicle itself, not an unrelated outside force.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of personal injury protection benefits under Michigan's no-fault act for injuries occurring in multi-purpose vehicles. By establishing the 'transportational function' test, the court explicitly overruled precedent that had allowed coverage for injuries arising from any intended use of a vehicle. This creates a much stricter standard, requiring a direct link between the injury and the vehicle's role in transportation, thereby limiting liability for insurers in cases where vehicles are used as temporary living quarters or worksites.
