Court Opinion

ID: 9663368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:36:23.32596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:48.432546
License: Public Domain

Shepherd, P.J.,
(concurring). I write separately to emphasize that we have to look at the circumstances of defendant’s injury and determine whether she would have been eligible to receive no-fault benefits in order to decide whether this is a suit for noneconomic damages authorized by the no-fault act. Here, the accident arose out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a *436motor vehicle and occurred while defendant was alighting from the work truck. Thus defendant’s injury fell within the parked vehicle exception, MCL 500.3106(l)(c); MSA 24.13106(l)(c). Plaintiff does not contend that defendant was "loading, unloading or doing mechanical work on a vehicle” which would preclude recovery of no-fault benefits under MCL 500.3106(2); MSA 24.13106(2). Thus under Great American Ins Co v Queen, 410 Mich 73; 300 NW2d 895 (1980), plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursement for workers’ compensation benefits paid to defendant.