Action seeking personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan; MCL 500.3127(1); Insurer priority; Whether a vehicle was “involved in the accident”; MCL 500.3115(1); Turner v Auto Club Ins Ass’n; Physical contact; Auto Club Ins Ass’n v State Auto Mut Ins Co; Distinguishing Department of Soc Servs v Auto Club Ins Ass'n & Hastings Mut Ins Co v State Farm Ins Co; Harmless error

The court held that the trial court properly determined defendant-Nationwide was a higher-priority insurer than defendant-Geico. Defendant-Anderson, who was uninsured, clipped another vehicle (insured by Geico) then veered off the road and hit plaintiff-pedestrian, who was also uninsured. Plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits was assigned to Nationwide. Based on the case law "interpreting the phrase ‘involved in the accident,’” the court had little difficulty concluding that the vehicle insured by Geico “was not involved in the accident” that injured plaintiff because it “did nothing that actively contributed to the happening of the accident beyond its mere presence.” Noting Department of Soc Servs “stated that ‘a vehicle which is motionless in a lawful position is less likely to be considered’” involved, the court found there was no dispute that the Geico-insured vehicle “was motionless and in a lawful position when it was hit by Anderson’s vehicle, so this statement would support the trial court’s” ruling. Hastings was also readily distinguishable from this “case because the two cars that did not have physical contact with the motorcyclist still did something to actively contribute to the accident.” Here, in contrast, the Geico-insured “vehicle did nothing to actively contribute to the accident; it was stopped and waiting to turn for about 10 seconds before it was hit by Anderson’s vehicle.” Finally, the court rejected Nationwide’s claim that the trial court impermissibly injected fault into its analysis of whether the Geico-insured vehicle actively contributed to the accident, given its “comment that ‘it doesn’t at all’ seem ‘fair’” for Geico to be held responsible for the accident. “This single comment was made in response to a comment by Nationwide’s counsel that holding Geico responsible ‘doesn’t seem fair,’ and we disagree that this off-the-cuff comment shows that the lower court injected fault into its analysis.” Moreover, any error was harmless given the court’s “conclusion that, regardless of who was at fault for the accident, there can be no question under the facts of this case that” the Geico-insured vehicle “did not actively contribute to the accident, and therefore cannot be considered ‘involved in the accident’ for purposes of the" No-Fault Act. Affirmed.