Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Kudek v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange
Citations: 300 N.W.2d 350; 100 Mich. App. 635; 1980 Mich. App. LEXIS 2983Docket: Docket 45223
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals; October 8, 1980; Michigan; State Appellate Court
Defendant Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange appeals the trial court's summary declaratory judgment favoring plaintiff, the widow of Ronald Kudek, a self-employed mechanic who died from injuries sustained when a wheel exploded while he was working on a truck. Kudek's personal vehicle was insured under a no-fault insurance policy with the defendant. The widow sued the defendant and Michigan Mutual Insurance Company, which insured the truck, for personal protection insurance benefits. The trial court dismissed Michigan Mutual and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding no material fact issues and ruling in her favor as a matter of law, under GCR 1963, 117.2(3). While the applicability of MCL 500.3105, allowing benefits for injuries from motor vehicle use, was not contested, the key issue was whether the truck was parked, thus invoking MCL 500.3106’s exclusion of benefits for injuries from parked vehicles. MCL 500.3106 outlines specific conditions under which benefits can still be awarded despite a vehicle being parked. The plaintiff contended the truck was not parked, citing the Michigan Vehicle Code's definition of "parking," which refers to a vehicle standing on a highway when not loading or unloading, except when making repairs. She argued that since the truck was in a shop and repairs were being made, it did not qualify as parked. The plaintiff also asserted that not adopting this definition would unjustly exclude individuals making necessary repairs on vehicles from receiving benefits. Conversely, the defendant maintained that the truck was parked and that the exceptions did not apply. Legislative intent regarding no-fault benefits indicates they are not payable for injuries sustained while servicing a vehicle on business premises, but benefits are applicable for necessary repairs on highways. The defendant, Exchange, acknowledges this distinction and argues that a recent court decision supports their position. In *Miller v Auto-Owners Ins Co*, the court reversed a trial court ruling that defined 'parking' too narrowly, concluding that the plaintiff's vehicle, while being worked on, should be considered parked. The court reasoned that a vehicle cannot be maintained if it has been left, and accepted a broader understanding of 'parking' that includes stopped vehicles in certain scenarios. The court also emphasized that the Michigan Vehicle Code's definition does not limit the no-fault act's definition of 'parking' to vehicles only on highways. The court determined the truck in the present case was parked under the no-fault act, leading to a reversal of the trial court’s summary judgment. The case is remanded for further examination of whether any statutory exceptions apply, without retaining jurisdiction.