The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s grant of summary disposition because Michigan law recognizes a critical exception for loading or uploading in its definition of parking, and thus Plaintiff’s conduct fits within that exception, and because comparative negligence is a question for the jury.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s findings of liability, fraudulent intent, and treble damages with regard to claims based on failure to disclose accurate mileage, but vacated its attorney fee award and remanded for reconsideration under the proper legal framework as articulated in Pirgu v United Serv Auto Ass’n, 499 Mich 269 (2016).