PIP liability for a motorcyclist’s injuries; Motor vehicle involvement requirement; MCL 500.3114(1) & (5); “Involved” in the accident; Turner v Auto Club Ins Ass’n; Detroit Med Ctr v Progressive MI Ins Co; Displaced air from a moving semi-trailer truck

Holding that “the semi at issue was not ‘involved’ in” the motorcycle accident that gave rise to this case by virtue of an “aerodynamic wake” it created, the court held that the motorcyclist’s (nonparty-R) no-fault insurer (defendant) was “not liable under § 3114(1) or (5) for PIP benefits to” plaintiff-healthcare provider for the services it provided to R. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s summary disposition motion and granting in part plaintiff’s motion. Pursuant to Turner, for “a motor vehicle to be ‘involved’ in an accident, it ‘must actively, as opposed to passively, contribute to the accident.’” What R’s husband (and passenger) said disrupted R “was the ‘turbulence [semis] can make’—a recognition of this as a normal incident of semis traveling on the expressway. Even if a jury believed their testimony, what they described was the physical byproduct of ordinary highway operation of a semi. This is exactly the sort of ‘passive’ contribution to an accident that Turner contemplated.” The court concluded that if “this semi were construed to be ‘involved,’ it would seemingly be impossible for a moving vehicle to ‘passively . . . contribute’ to an accident. Without a motor vehicle that is ‘involved’ in the accident, there is no liability under § 3114(5). As a result, the trial court erred—even if a jury did believe that the motorcycle was affected by the wind, the wind created by passive use of the semi on the freeway does not, as a matter of law, render the semi ‘involved’ in the accident.” MCL 500.3114(1) applied here, but it also “requires that a motor vehicle be ‘involved.’” Because that provision “requires that the injury ‘arise from a motor vehicle accident,’ and § 3101(3)(j) defines a motor vehicle accident as one that ‘involves’ a motor vehicle, Turner’s ‘involvement’ standard still applies. As a result, plaintiff cannot claim benefits under § 3114(1) any more than it can under § 3114(5).”