Legal Opinion · Dissent

Thompson v. TNT Overland Express

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided September 7, 1993No. Docket 136558Published

1DissentGriffin, J.

I respectfully dissent. I would hold that plaintiff was "doing mechanical work” on the parked vehicle at the time of his fall. Accordingly, I would hold that plaintiff is barred by operation of MCL 500.3106(2); MSA 24.13106(2) from collecting no-fault benefits for his injuries.1

Section 3106(2) was intended to eliminate duplicative recovery for work-related injuries except where actual driving or operation of a motor vehicle is involved. Stanley v State Automobile Mutual Ins Co, 160 Mich App 434, 439; 408 NW2d 467 (1987); Bell v F J Boutell Driveaway Co, 141 Mich App 802, 809-811; 369 NW2d 231…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bell v. F. J. Boutell Driveaway Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. MacDonald v. Michigan Mutual InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. Dowling v. Auto Club Casualty InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
  4. Stanley v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. Cobb v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API