FOLLOW US

A hand resting on a truck could become the dividing line between insurance coverage and nothing at all.

The Michigan Supreme Court will consider whether physical contact with a vehicle is enough to establish that an injured person was "occupying" it for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage. The case centers on Jeffrey Gray, a driver who was struck by an uninsured motorist while unloading fuel at a gas station.

The justices said Friday they will hear mini oral arguments on Gray's application for leave to appeal a lower appellate court ruling that denied him coverage because, although one hand was touching his tanker truck, his feet remained firmly on the ground.

Gray is challenging a February unpublished decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals that upheld a trial court ruling in favor of Federated Mutual Insurance Co.

The Vehicle Touching Occupying Suit

According to the Court of Appeals' opinion, Gray was standing next to his tanker truck while unloading fuel when uninsured driver Ashtan Brown struck him.

Gray had both feet planted on the pavement and one hand touching the tanker. He sought uninsured motorist benefits from insurers for his employer, including Federated Mutual.

The policy extended uninsured motorist coverage to people "occupying" the covered vehicle. It defined that term as being "in, upon, getting in, on, out or off" the vehicle.

Federated Mutual rejected Gray's claim, determining that his position did not qualify as being "on" or "upon" the truck.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed.

The judges concluded that Gray's feet were both on the ground and only one hand was in contact with the tanker. Under those circumstances, the panel said, Gray could not be considered "upon" the vehicle.

The ruling effectively turned a simple question of contact into a much larger legal puzzle: When does touching a vehicle become occupying it?

Gray Seeks Clarity From Michigan's High Court

In his application for leave to appeal, Gray argued that Michigan appellate courts have not consistently interpreted what "on" and "upon" mean when an injured person is outside a vehicle but remains physically connected to it.

He urged the state's highest court to settle the issue, saying the need for clear guidance reaches beyond his individual case and potentially affects motorists throughout Michigan.

The Supreme Court's Friday order appears poised to do exactly that.

The justices directed the parties to address whether Gray was "upon" or "on" the tanker and therefore was "occupying" it when he was struck. They also asked what factors, beyond physical contact, should determine whether an injured person is "upon" a vehicle for purposes of uninsured motorist benefits.

The court further wants the parties to examine whether previous appellate decisions properly interpreted those terms.

A 2003 Case Could Hold the Key

The justices specifically asked the parties to revisit the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Rednour v. Hastings Mutual Insurance Co.

That case involved a person injured while changing a tire. The court held that physical contact alone was not enough to establish that someone was "upon" a vehicle and therefore occupying it.

The Rednour ruling partially rejected a 1994 Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Rohlman v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co. In that case, the appellate panel said a person seeking uninsured motorist benefits under an "upon" theory had to demonstrate at least some physical contact with the insured vehicle.

But while Rednour made clear that touching a vehicle was not sufficient by itself, it did not spell out exactly what additional circumstances would satisfy the definition of "upon" or "occupying," according to the Court of Appeals' opinion in Gray's case.

That unresolved gap has now returned to the Supreme Court.

Another Case Complicates the Question

More than a decade later, the Court of Appeals revisited the meaning of "upon" and "occupying" in Westfield Insurance Co. v. Ken's Service.

The case involved identical policy language. In a split published decision, the panel determined that a driver was not occupying a tow truck when he was struck despite having both hands on the vehicle and leaning against it for support.

Federated Mutual cited the Westfield decision in arguing that Gray's contact with his tanker was insufficient to establish that he was "upon" the vehicle.

The conflicting interpretations have helped push the issue back toward Michigan's highest court.

Gray Proposes a Four-Part Test

Gray's application asks the Supreme Court to consider a four-part test used by courts in other states when deciding whether someone is "occupying" a vehicle.

The proposed framework would examine whether there is a connection between the injury and the use of the insured vehicle, whether the person was reasonably close to the vehicle, whether the person was "vehicle oriented" rather than positioned on a sidewalk or highway, and whether the person was engaged in a transaction essential to the vehicle's use when the injury occurred.

Gray argues that he satisfies each of those factors.

His hand was touching the tanker, while his other hand was on the drop head, a component of the tanker that he described as an "integral" part of the truck's operation. He was also unloading fuel when the collision occurred, directly tying his actions to the vehicle's intended use.

Under that framework, Gray contends he should qualify as being both "on" and "upon" the tanker and therefore should receive uninsured motorist benefits.

The Supreme Court's decision could ultimately determine whether physical contact is merely one piece of the puzzle or whether the surrounding circumstances must also establish a meaningful relationship between the injured person and the vehicle.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

Gray is represented by Mark R. Bendure of Bendure & Thomas PLC and Louis G. Corey of The Corey Law Firm.

Federated Mutual is represented by Hilary A. Ballentine and Courtney A. Lavender of Plunkett Cooney PC.