 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
E & L Transport Company6/25/2002
State Mutual Ins Co v Allstate Ins Co, 417 Mich 590, 593; 339 NW2d 470 (1983). Section 3123(1) specifically excludes the following property from property protection benefits:
(a) Vehicles and their contents, including trailers, operated or designed for operation upon a public highway by power other than muscular power, unless the vehicle is parked in a manner as not to cause unreasonable risk of the damage which occurred.
A plain reading of the statute shows that plaintiff is not entitled to property protection benefits under the no-fault act for damage to the Ford vehicles. The statutory language unambiguously excludes " ehicles and their contents" from receiving property protection insurance benefits. While § 3123 does not explain the term "contents," the dictionary defines them as "something that is contained: the contents of a box." The Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (2nd ed, 1998); see also Maxwell v Citizens Ins Co of America, 245 Mich App 477, 482; 628 NW2d 95 (2001). The word "contents," as used in § 3123, is synonymous with something that is carried or transported, such as cargo.
In this case, the Ford vehicles were loaded on the auto-transport and tied down with chains. The auto-transport was moving on the highway. It is axiomatic that an object contained in or on a vehicle becomes the contents of that vehicle and at the same time retains its original identity. Thus, we find that the Ford vehicles, while designed for use on the freeway, were contents on plaintiff's auto-transport at the time they were damaged. Because vehicles and their contents are specifically excluded from property protection insurance benefits under § 3123, the trial court properly granted defendant's motion for summary disposition.
Given our conclusion that the Ford vehicles were contents of plaintiff's auto-transport vehicle, we need not address plaintiff's further argument that the Ford vehicles were "parked" pursuant to the no-fault act. It does however appear that plaintiff's claim in this regard lacks merit. Section 3123(1) permits coverage of property damage for parked vehicles that did not create an unreasonable risk of the damage that occurred. We do not find that plaintiff's auto-transport vehicle or the Ford vehicles were parked at the time of the accident. See United Souther Assurance Co v Aetna Life & Casualty Ins Co, 189 Mich App 485, 488-490; 474 NW2d 131 (1991) (comparing a parked vehicle to a standing or stationary object).
We affirm.
Donald S. Owens
David H. Sawyer
Jessica R. Cooper
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.
|
|