 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
E & L Transport Company6/25/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's order granting defendants' motion for summary disposition, pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Procedural History
The facts in this case are not in dispute and involve Michigan's no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq. On June 16, 1998, an auto-transport vehicle, owned and operated by plaintiff, was in the process of hauling vehicles to a Ford dealership when it was negligently struck from behind by a semi-truck. The driver of the semi-truck was ticketed by the police. The semi-truck was owned and operated by defendant Yellow Freight and was insured by the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Insurance). This collision damaged plaintiff's auto-transport vehicle and three of the Ford vehicles it was carrying. After the accident, defendants paid plaintiff $500.00, as required by "mini-tort" provision in MCL 500.3135(3)(d). Thereafter, plaintiff presented a claim to defendant Yellow Freight, through Warner Adjustment Company, for the damage sustained by the Ford vehicles.
On June 14, 1999 plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Warner Adjustment Company wrongfully failed to reimburse plaintiff for damages sustained to the parked Ford vehicles during the accident. According to plaintiff, the vehicles on its auto-transport "were parked in a manner so as not to cause an unreasonable risk of the damage which occurred." Plaintiff claimed that § 3121 of the no-fault act required defendants to pay property protection benefits for the accidental damage caused by defendant Yellow Freight's truck. However, in defendants' response and affirmative defenses, they alleged that plaintiff's claim was precluded by §§ 3106, 3121 and 3123 of the no-fault act.
Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) on June 23, 2000. In its motion, plaintiff argued that the Ford vehicles were parked motor vehicles as defined by the no-fault act and not mere "contents." Essentially, plaintiff opined that the no- fault act permitted an action for property damage when the damaged vehicle was parked on a vehicle transport in such a way that it did not contribute to the accident. Furthermore, plaintiff maintained that the damaged Ford vehicles were "motor vehicles" and that they did not lose this status because they were loaded on an auto-transport. Plaintiff claimed that § 3123 of the no-fault act distinguishes between "vehicles" and "contents" and that these categories are mutually exclusive. Plaintiff also suggested that if the Ford vehicles were considered "contents," instead of vehicles, there would be a gap in the no-fault coverage with no available tort remedy. While § 3106 of the no-fault act, which pertains solely to claims resulting in bodily injury , specifically excludes motor vehicles being loaded on an auto-transport, there is no such provision under the applicable property damage statute, § 3123. Indeed, plaintiff noted that § 3106 only excludes such motor vehicles because worker's compensation is available. Whereas, in the instant case, plaintiff alleged it would be denied any remedy without Michigan's no-fault act.
Plaintiff further purported in its motion that the Ford vehicles were parked--as defined by § 3123. According to §§ 3106 and 3123, a "parked vehicle" is one that is parked in such a manner as not to cause an unreasonable risk of the property damage or bodily injury that occurred. Plaintiff claimed that there was no causal link between the operation of the Ford vehicles and the accident and that in this case the Ford vehicles were not even being operated. Because there is never a question about whe
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|