-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

IRENE WHEELER, Personal Representative of 

the Estate of GEORGE SCHRAGE, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

UNPUBLISHED 

March 9, 2017 

v No. 330150 

Iosco Circuit Court 

MIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORP, LC No. 15-009137-NF 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and MARKEY and MURRAY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Plaintiff appeals by right the order of the circuit court granting defendant’s motion for 

summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We reverse and remand. 

 George Schrage was severely injured when a racecar exited the race track and struck him 

as he was being pulled into the bed of a pickup truck parked on the infield of the quarter-mile 

asphalt track. Schrage and two other men served as volunteers attending to the condition of the 

track during the race, and they used the pickup in fulfilling their responsibilities. The volunteers 

would clean up the track, extinguish any fires, and, if necessary, rescue a driver. Just before he 

was struck by the racecar, Strange was near the back of the pickup, and two other volunteers 

were in the pickup’s bed. When he was struck, Schrage was retrieving a broom from the truck 

and was facing away from the direction that the racecar came. The two volunteers who were 

standing in the truck bed saw the racecar coming toward them and attempted, but failed, to 

quickly lift Schrage into the back of the truck. Schrage testified that he first knew something 

was “going wrong” was when “[t]he two guys in the bed of the truck tried to reach over and pull 

me into the bed.” Schrage also testified that the two volunteers “didn’t get me off the ground,” 

and the “next thing I know I get hit.” 

 After his claim of appeal was filed, Schrage died. The personal representative of his 

estate, Irene Wheeler, was substituted as plaintiff-appellant.1

 

1 Estate of Schrage v MIC Gen Ins Corp, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered 

October 14, 2016 (Docket No. 330150). 
-2- 

 Plaintiff argues that he was owed personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under the facts 

of the case and that the trial court erred in granting defendant summary disposition. We review 

de novo a trial court’s grant of summary disposition. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 

597 NW2d 817 (1999). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the 

factual sufficiency of a claim and must be supported by affidavits, depositions, admissions, or 

documentary evidence. Bronson Methodist Hosp v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 295 Mich App 431, 

440; 814 NW2d 670 (2012); MCR 2.116(G)(3)(b) and (G)(4). When considering the motion, a 

court must view the submitted evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the 

motion. Corley v Detroit Bd of Ed, 470 Mich 274, 278; 681 NW2d 342 (2004). If the moving 

party carries its initial burden, the party opposing the motion must then demonstrate that there is 

a disputed material fact question by submitting evidence, “the content or substance would be 

admissible as evidence to establish or deny the grounds stated in the motion.” MCR 

2.116(G)(6). The motion should be granted when the evidence demonstrates that there is no 

genuine issue regarding any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. Miller v Purcell, 246 Mich App 244, 246; 631 NW2d 760 (2001). “A genuine 

issue of material fact exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the 

opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ.” West v Gen 

Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 

 Both parties agree that the racecar that struck Schrage was not a motor vehicle2

 as 

defined in MCL 257.33 and that the pickup truck Schrage and the other volunteers were using 

was a parked motor vehicle. The trial court granted the motion, explaining that the volunteers’ 

“trying to pull him into the vehicle didn’t have anything to do with him getting hit by a racecar. 

The racecar is not a—not a motor vehicle. And I just don’t see any issues of any material fact 

that are left for the jury in this case.” We disagree. 

 MCL 500.3106, governs when PIP coverage applies to parked vehicles, and states in part: 

 (1) Accidental bodily injury does not arise out of the ownership, operation, 

maintenance, or use of a parked vehicle as a motor vehicle unless any of the 

following occur: 

 (a) The vehicle was parked in such a way as to cause unreasonable risk of 

the bodily injury which occurred. 

 (b) Except as provided in subsection (2), the injury was a direct result of 

physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle, while the 

equipment was being operated or used, or property being lifted onto or lowered 

from the vehicle in the loading or unloading process. 

 

2

 Apparently this stipulation is based on the fact that the racecar was not registered or designed 

for use on public roads. See Apperson v Citizens Mut Ins Co, 130 Mich App 799; 344 NW2d 

812 (1983). 
-3- 

 (c) Except as provided in subsection (2), the injury was sustained by a 

person while occupying, entering into, or alighting from the vehicle. 

Neither party asserts § 3106(1)(a) applies, i.e. that the truck was parked in such a way as 

to cause unreasonable risk of bodily injury. And, we need not address § 3106(1)(b), see e.g., 

Adanalic v Harco Nat Ins Co, 309 Mich App 173, 184 n 5; 870 NW2d 731 (2015), because a 

genuine issue of material question of fact remains for trial: whether “the injury was sustained by 

[Schrage] while occupying, entering into, or alighting from the vehicle.” MCL 500.3106(1)(c) 

(emphasis added). See Shanafelt v Allstate Ins Co, 217 Mich App 625, 631-634; 552 NW2d 671 

(1996). 

Although Schrage testified that he was not intending to get into the pickup, he also 

testified that he first knew something was “going wrong” when “[t]he two guys in the bed of the 

truck tried to reach over and pull me into the bed.” In other words, while Schrage did not have 

the subjective intent to enter the pickup, a reasonable factfinder could conclude from the 

evidence that Schrage’s companions were attempting to pull him unto the bed of the pickup 

when the accident occurred; consequently, there is a genuine issue of material fact whether 

Schrage was, in fact, “entering into . . . the vehicle.” MCL 500.3106(1)(c). Patently, the 

evidence shows the pickup truck, although parked at the time of the accident, was being used by 

the volunteers as a motor vehicle since they would drive the truck from place to place in a 

dangerous situation while performing their duties of track repair and emergency response. See 

McKenzie v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 458 Mich 214, 218-219; 580 NW2d 424 (1998) (“a vehicle is 

used ‘as a motor vehicle,’ i.e., to get from one place to another”); Shanafelt, 217 Mich App at 

634 (“where one is injured ‘entering into’ a parked vehicle, those injuries are deemed to be 

directly related to the vehicle’s character as a motor vehicle”). For these same reasons, “the 

injury had a causal relationship to the parked motor vehicle that is more than incidental, 

fortuitous, or but for.” Putkamer v Transamerica Ins Corp, 454 Mich 626, 636; 563 NW2d 683 

(1997). 

 We reverse and remand for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction. Appellant 

as the prevailing party, may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219. 

/s/ Peter D. O'Connell 

/s/ Jane E. Markey 

/s/ Christopher M. Murray