Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 264070; Published
Judges Jansen, Sawyer, and Bandstra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 273 Mich. App. 315, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage and Loss of Use) [3121(1)]
Vehicles and Trailers, Including Motorcycles [3123(1)(a)]
Property Owned by Named Insured [3123(1)(b)]
General / Miscellaneous [3125]
General / Miscellaneous [3127]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that even though MCL 500.3121(1) provides that property protection insurance is available for a vehicle damaged during the course of a business of repairing, servicing, or maintaining the vehicle, that provision is subject to the limitations contained in MCL 500.3123, MCL 500.3125, and MCL 500.3127.
In this case to recover for damages to an insured vehicle, the defendant, the Novi Car Wash, moved for summary disposition, arguing that §3121(1) always requires that a no-fault insurer pay for accidental damage to an insured vehicle, if the vehicle is damaged while in the course of maintenance. The Court of Appeals disagreed, reasoning that the second sentence of §3121(1) merely provides that when a vehicle is damaged during maintenance, a no-fault insurer is only liable for the vehicle and its contents. No language in the statute mandates that the insurer always pays for damage to the insured vehicle. Therefore, if any of the exclusions provided by §§3123, 3125, or 3127 apply, then the no-fault insurer is not liable. In this case, defendant conceded that if §3121 did not provide mandatory coverage, then the exclusion in §3123(1)(a) and §3123(1)(b) applied. In this regard, the court stated:
“The specific language of the statute supports plaintiff’s interpretation. The second sentence of § 3121(1) defines and limits the phrase ‘accidental damage to tangible property’ found in the first sentence of § 3121(1). Whatever the unmodified definition of ‘accidental damage to tangible property’ is, where the damage occurs in the course of a business of maintaining motor vehicles, only damage to the insured motor vehicle is considered ‘accidental damage to tangible property.’ No language in the second sentence mandates that the insurer always pay for accidental damage to the insured motor vehicle or that the payment of benefits for the accidental damage is not subject to the provisions of §§ 3123, 3125 and 3127. Instead, damage to the insured motor vehicle that occurs in the course of the business of maintaining motor vehicles is merely accidental damage to tangible property that the insurer may or may not be liable for, depending on other provisions of the no-fault act.
Because the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used in § 3121(1) is clear, judicial construction is neither necessary nor permitted. . . . Under that plain language, an insurer’s duty to pay benefits for accidental damage to tangible property arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle is subject to the provisions of §§ 3123, 3125 and 3127. Defendant does not dispute that, if plaintiff’s interpretation of the statute is correct, both § 3123(1)(a) and § 3123(1)(b) would exclude the vehicle in this case from property protection insurance benefits.”
