Department of Transportation v Landstar Ligon, Inc., et al; (COA-UNP, 8/5/2004, RB #2483)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #250744; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Markey, and O’Connell; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion


STATUTORY INDEXING:    
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage and Loss of Use) [3121(1)]   
Limitations Period for PPI Claims [3145(2)]         

TOPICAL INDEXING:   
Revised Judicature Act – Tolling of Statutes of Limitations (MCL 600.5851 – 600.5856) 


CASE SUMMARY: 
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to the defendant on plaintiff State of Michigan’s claim for property damage to a highway overpass caused by defendant’s truck.  The court agreed that plaintiff MDOT’s claim was for property protection insurance benefits which are subject to a one year statute of limitations under §3145(2) of the Act.  In this case, plaintiff MDOT did not commence suit until after the one year statute of limitations.  Therefore, the claim is barred.

The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the no-fault one year statute of limitations for property protection insurance benefits did not apply to the State, as the State had not specifically agreed to be subject to this limitation period.  The Court of Appeals rejected this argument on the basis that MCL 600.5821(3) holds the State to the same limitations period as individuals.

The Court of Appeals also rejected plaintiff MDOT’s argument that MCL 257.719, which specifically requires truck owners to pay for damages to overpasses struck by overhead trucks, preempts the Michigan no-fault law.  The court noted that this statute is essentially tort based and, therefore, it had been preempted by §3135(3) of the Michigan No-Fault Act which states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, tort liability arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use, within this state of a motor vehicle . . . is abolished. . . .”  The court found that this abolition of tort remedies, including the remedies found in MCL 257.719, left the State with only one remedy–a claim for property protection benefits under §3121 of the No-Fault Act which was now barred because of the State’s failure to comply with the one year statute of limitations.