No-fault insurance; Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; MCL 500.3105(1); Use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle; Transportational function; McKenzie v Auto Club Ins Ass’n; Causation; Thornton v Allstate Ins Co; Summary disposition; Directed verdict; Great weight of the evidence

The court held that the trial court properly denied defendant-insurer summary disposition and a directed verdict, and that the jury’s verdict awarding PIP benefits was supported by the evidence. Plaintiff was severely injured when a firework exploded inside his moving vehicle after, according to his testimony, he dropped a hot car cigarette lighter while trying to return it to the socket after the vehicle hit rumble strips. On appeal, the court first held that summary disposition was properly denied because plaintiff’s sworn testimony created a factual question whether his injuries arose out of the “operation or use of his motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.” Viewing the evidence most favorably to plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that the vehicle’s travel over rumble strips caused him to drop the lighter, which lit the firework, and that because he was operating a moving vehicle, he “could not simply get out of the explosive range.” The court held this was more than incidental or fortuitous because the motor vehicle was “instrumental” in the chain of events, and the injuries were “closely related to the motor vehicle’s transportational function” under McKenzie. The court also rejected defendant’s reliance on cases involving a parked car or homeowner’s policy exclusions because those cases did not involve testimony that operation of a moving vehicle caused the lighter to ignite the firework and prevented evacuation. For the same reasons, the court held that a directed verdict was properly denied because reasonable jurors could conclude plaintiff’s injuries arose from the vehicle’s use as a motor vehicle. Finally, the court upheld the verdict because there was competent evidence supporting the jury’s finding, and the No-Fault Act is remedial and “‘must be construed liberally’” in favor of intended beneficiaries. Affirmed.