Opinion ID: 1826624
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: pip benefits: the trailer

Text: While the parties mainly base their respective claims on the question whether the plaintiff was an occupant of the van, the plaintiff, albeit briefly, also contends that he was an occupant of the trailer and that the trailer was a covered vehicle under the Hawkeye policy covering the van. The trial court and the Court of Appeals did not find it necessary to make a determination whether the plaintiff was an occupant of the trailer because they concluded that he was an occupant of the van. As far as PIP benefits are concerned, the analysis of whether plaintiff was an occupant of the trailer is similar to that discussed above with respect to the van. We acknowledge that occupying the trailer is a closer question than occupying the van. However, in addition to the fact that the lower courts did not address this issue, the record is inadequate for its resolution. [12] In the trial court, Hawkeye argued that the plaintiff should seek recovery from the insurer of the trailer, ACIA. MCL 500.3114(4)(a); MSA 24.13114(4)(a). The trial court held that the trailer was a covered auto under Hawkeye's policy for purposes of priority, while also holding that the plaintiff was an occupant of the van. A careful reading of the statute and policy show that this holding was reached without a complete analysis. As we stated above, the statute controls the awarding of PIP benefits, while the insurance policy controls the uninsured motorist benefits. And, just as it is necessary to determine whether plaintiff was an occupant of the van or trailer for purposes of PIP, as well as for uninsured motorist benefits, it is also necessary to provide the same type of analysis regarding the question of covered vehicle. [13]