Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; The No-Fault Act; MCL 500.3105(1); Injuries occurring when a moving vehicle hits a parked vehicle; Kalin v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch; Whether an injury arose from an intentional act; Distinguishing Thornton v Allstate Ins Co & Bourne v Farmers Ins Exch; University Rehab Alliance, Inc v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of MI; The actor’s intent; Miller v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co; Cipri v Bellingham Frozen Foods, Inc

The court held that plaintiff-Joseph established a genuine issue of material fact as to his entitlement to PIP benefits under MCL 500.3105(1) given the evidence his injuries arose out of the operation of another semitruck (a Volvo) and its collision with the one in which he was sleeping (a Freightliner). Further, as to a second incident, reasonable fact-finders could conclude neither he nor the driver of the Volvo semi (nonparty-B) “intentionally caused Joseph’s alleged injuries.” Thus, it found that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition to (1) defendants-Progressive and National General as “to the collision that occurred while Joseph was inside” the Freightliner and (2) for National General on his claim for PIP benefits arising from alleged injuries he sustained when he later fell from the Volvo. The court concluded that pursuant to Kalin, although “the first collision involved a parked vehicle (i.e., the Freightliner semitruck), Joseph was entitled to no-fault benefits under MCL 500.3105 because his injuries arose out of [B’s] operation of a motor vehicle (i.e., the Volvo semitruck).” The trial court erred in analyzing “the first collision by focusing on the Freightliner semitruck through the lens of MCL 500.3106 (the parked-vehicle exception) instead of focusing on the Volvo semitruck through the lens of MCL 500.3105 (ownership, operation, maintenance, or use).” It noted that “when a moving vehicle hits a parked vehicle, generally there is no need to engage with the parked-vehicle exception—MCL 500.3105 applies.” Here, the impact of the Volvo’s collision with the Freightliner “caused Joseph to fall out of the sleeper berth and onto his right side, resulting in alleged injuries. [His] injuries arose at least in part out of [B’s] operation of the Volvo semitruck as a motor vehicle.” As to the second incident, the court found this case was “distinguishable from Thornton and Bourne and akin to Univ Rehab Alliance, Inc because Joseph’s alleged injuries occurred when he fell from a moving vehicle used for transportation.” And there were “genuine issues of material fact as to whether [he] intentionally caused his own alleged injuries and whether [B] intentionally caused” them. Joseph testified that he stepped onto the Volvo’s “running board as the vehicle passed. Although [B] accelerated and applied the brakes multiple times while Joseph stood on the running board, Joseph opined that [B] did so in an attempt to flee the truck stop.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.