Summary: Should we? I don't think so, because it is not a pesik.
Post: We have the following pasuk in parashat Chayei Sarah:
Birkas Avraham analyzes the underlined pesik as well as the word vayhi.
בפסוק (בראשית כד ל, ) ויהי כראות את
הנזם וגו' ויבא אל האיש והנה עומד על
הגמלים על העין. יש להבין לשון ויהי שהוא
מורה על צער שהיה שם, וגם להבין מה שיש
טעם פסיק [ קו ] אחר תיבת ויהי .
ויתבאר כל זה עם ה'מדרש אבכיר' שהביא
הילקוט שמעוני, וכעין זה איתא ב'מדרש
אגדה' ובתור"ש עיין שם, שאחר שראה לבן
את הנזם וכו' רצה להורגו , כי חשד בו, והכיר
אליעזר שמרוצתו לרעה, והזכיר שֵם והעמיד
הגמלים על העין באויר, והוא עומד על
הגמלים באויר. ומזה הכיר לבן שהוא צדיק,
ואף היה סבור שהוא אברהם אבינו, שהיה
קלסתר פניו דומה לו עיי"ש , ובהמשך דברינו
"In the verse [the one just cited], there is to understand the language of ויהי, which informs on pain that he was there. And there is also to understand why there is a trup symbol of pesik (a vertical bar | ) after the word ויהי.
And all this is explained with the Midrash Avkir which the Yalkut Shimoni brings, and like this there is in the Midrash Aggadah and the Torah Shleima, see there: that after Lavan saw the ring, he wished to kill him [=Eliezer], for he suspected him [of molesting Rivkah], and Elirzer recognized that his running was for evil, and so he mentioned the Divine Name and levitated the camels in the air. And from this Lavan recognized that he was a righteous person, and he even thought that he [=Eliezer] has Avraham Avinu, for the visage of his face was similar to him, see inside. And as we continue in the next piece."
I recall seeing a variant of this midrash in Bereishit Rabbati, [probably] from Bereishit Rabbati, that Lavan grabbed his sword to kill Eliezer, for the same reason mentioned, but he saw him using his own strength to lift up the camels, and so knew he could not prevail in direct conflict. Which is why Lavan sought to poison Eliezer.
The problem with darshening a pesik like this, as I've discussed many many times in the past -- see here for an example -- is that it is not a pesik. This vertical bar is part of the munach of the preceding word, manking it into the disjunctive munach legarmeih rather than the regular conjunctive munach.
And, in terms of vayhi, the gemara modifies that statement, such that only vayhi biymei will consistently denote pain. But there are plenty of examples, acknowledges the gemara, where a solitary vayhi does not connote pain.
So, neither textual cue really exists to spark this derasha or require explanation.