Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #227194; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Jansen and Kelly; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability for Intentionally Caused Harm [3135(3)(a)]
Limitations Period for PPI Claims [3145(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion involving a case of property damage caused by a trespassing utility cable truck, the Court of Appeals dismissed the claim because the property owner had not filed the action within one (1) year of the accident. In the lawsuit, the property owner sought damages that would have been compensable under the property protection insurance provisions of section 3121 of the No-Fault Act. Actions for property protection benefits must be filed within one (1) year of the accident as required by section 3145(2). Plaintiff argued that his claim was not time barred because it was, in actuality, an intentional tort claim based upon trespass and therefore plaintiff had alleged a tort cause of action under section 3135(3)(a) which permits recovery in tort for “intentionally caused harm to persons or property.” The statute of limitations for such tort claims is three (3) years.
The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s argument that this case properly asserted a claim under section 3135(3)(a) for the reason that this section permits recovery only where the tortfeasor specifically intends to cause the harm that results from an act as opposed to merely intending the act. In light of the fact that the truck driver did not specifically intend to cause harm to plaintiff’s property, the claim was not proper under section 3135(3)(a). In this regard, the court held:
“While we agree that plaintiff may have sufficiently plead an intentional tort, we find that the exception provided by section 3135(3)(a) is not for intentional torts but for intentionally caused harm. This means that the defendant must ‘intend to cause harm to a person or property and not merely ... intend to do the act which causes the harm.’ While the plaintiff is entitled to at least nominal or general damages which are presumed to follow from the trespass, that does not mean that the injuries for which those damages are assessed are presumed to have been intended. Thus, pursuant to MCL 500.3135(3)(a), liability for intentional torts committed with a motor vehicle is retained only for intentionally caused harm to persons or property. Plaintiff alleged only that defendants intentionally entered his property and did not allege any facts to show that defendants specifically intended to cause the harm that resulted from that act. As such, his complaint clearly fell within MCL 500.3145(2). Because the complaint was filed more than one year after the incident, it was time-barred.”
