Duty to defend & indemnify; Radenbaugh v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co.; USF&G v. Citizens Ins. Co.; Application of the “Appleman test” to determine whether the accident resulted from the use of the escort vehicles; Century Mut. Ins. Co. v. League Gen. Ins. Co.; Wakefield Leasing Corp. v. Transamerica Ins. Co. of MI; Applicability of Vanguard Ins. Co. v. Clarke & Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co.; Basic causal relation test; Thornton v. Allstate Ins. Co.; Kangas v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.; Fundamental purpose of a motor vehicle to provide transportation; McKenzie v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n

Holding that the Appleman test applied and that the allegations did not satisfy any of the test’s prongs, the court affirmed summary disposition for the insurers in these declaratory judgment actions consolidated on appeal. The cases arose from an accident in which a pickup truck collided with a semi-trailer. One of the passengers in the truck was fatally injured while the other suffered serious injuries. Appellants filed suit on their behalf. Counter-defendant-Fitzgerald was operating the lead “escort vehicle” for the semi-trailer while defendant-Zarych, an employee of defendant-MS Escort Truck Services, was operating the lead escort vehicle for a second semi that was to follow the other one. Appellee-Grange Insurance Company of Michigan insured MS Escort and appellee-Northland Casualty Company insured Fitzgerald. The court rejected appellants’ arguments that the trial court incorrectly applied the Appleman test to determine whether the accident resulted from the use of Fitzgerald’s and Zarych’s vehicles. Applying the test, it noted that the allegations as to Fitzgerald and Zarych “concerned their alleged failure to control, block, or warn drivers” of the semi-trailer and concrete beam blocking the road. These claims related to their alleged failure “to fulfill their professional duties as escort drivers for the semi-trailer” involved in the accident. However, a motor vehicle’s fundamental purpose “is providing transportation, not controlling traffic as an escort vehicle for a semi-trailer.” The allegations did not satisfy the first prong of the test because they did not show that “the accident arose out of the inherent transportation function of their vehicles ‘as such.’” As to the second prong, “the accident did not arise within the natural territorial limits of the vehicles driven by Fitzgerald and Zarych.” Finally, the vehicles they were driving “did not produce the injury; at best,” their alleged failure ‘to fulfill their professional duties as escort drivers could have contributed to causing the condition that led to the crash, which is insufficient to meet the third prong of the Appleman test.” Given that the injuries “did not result from the ownership, maintenance, or use of” their vehicles, the “underlying allegations did not arguably fall within the coverage of” the policies.