Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #303544; Unpublished
Judges Gleicher, M. J. Kelly, and Boonstra; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion:
Link to Partial Concurrence/Partial Dissent
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Involved Vehicle [§3125]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s determination that with regard to a property damage claim for fire damage to a condominium caused by a vehicle that was on fire following the vehicle colliding with a bus during a police chase, the insurers of the bus and the police vehicle were not liable for the property damage claim, because, pursuant to the Michigan Supreme Court’s holding in Turner v Auto Club Ins Assn, 448 Mich 22 (1995), it could not be demonstrated that the bus or police vehicle actively contributed to the fire damage at the condominium, given that when the driver of the vehicle drove away from the scene of the collision, he broke the causal link between the collision with the bus and the fire damage at the condominium.
The series of events that led to the fire damage to the condominium in this case began when a man named Ronnie Lockett attempted to pass a bad check at a furniture store. The employee called the police and Mr. Lockett fled in a vehicle. Police officer Kevin DeRoy followed Lockett in his police vehicle. However, he eventually lost site of Lockett and decided to terminate the chase. Shortly thereafter, Officer DeRoy drove by an intersection and noticed a bus that was stopped with its flashers on and debris in the roadway. He learned Lockett had driven through the intersection, hit the side of the bus, and then drove away. Officer DeRoy decided to pursue Lockett. Along the way, Officer DeRoy was informed by witnesses that Lockett had turned into a condominium complex. When Officer DeRoy arrived at the condominiums, he could see Lockett’s vehicle smoking and in flames. He eventually found Lockett near the vehicle. However, at that time, the fire and smoke had caused significant damage to the condominiums.
There was no question that the insurer of the vehicle Lockett was driving was liable for the property damage. Accordingly, the condominium complex reached a settlement with the insurer of the vehicle that Lockett was driving. However, the condominium complex also sought contribution from the insurers of the police vehicle and the bus, based on the argument that pursuant to MCL 500.3125, a “person suffering accidental property damage” has the right to seek “property protection insurance benefits” from the “insurers of owners or registrants of vehicles involved in the accident. . . .” The trial court ultimately ruled that the fire at the condominium was the result of Lockett deciding to drive his vehicle into the condominium and, therefore, the police vehicle and the bus were not “involved” in the damage.
In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals relied on the Michigan Supreme Court’s holding in Turner v Auto Club Ins Assn, in which the Supreme Court examined the meaning of the phrase “involved in the accident” and held that in order for a vehicle “to be considered ‘involved in the accident’ under § 3125, the motor vehicle being operated or used as a motor vehicle, must actively, as opposed to passively, contribute to the accident.” The Court in Turner further explained that a vehicle can be involved in an accident without making physical contact and without showing fault. However, there must be a showing that a vehicle must “make an active contribution to the happening of the accident” that gives rise to the damage.
Applying Turner to this case, the Court concluded that when Lockett regained control of his car and left the location of the accident, he broke the causal link between the collision with the bus and any loss that occurred as a result of the damage from that collision. There was no evidence that the bus and the police vehicle’s involvement subsequent to Lockett’s collision with the bus, actively contributed to the accidental fire. In this regard, the Court stated:
“The undisputed evidence showed that the SMART bus had no involvement in subsequent events and, for that reason, could not be said to have actively contributed to the fire at the condominiums. Moreover, although the police vehicles were involved in subsequent events, their involvement did not actively contribute to the happening of the fire. Id. The evidence showed that—even assuming that they were still actively pursuing Lockett—the police officers were no longer immediately behind Lockett such that his reckless actions might be directly attributed to their pursuit. And Safeco conceded on appeal that Lockett did not crash his car into the garage while trying to evade capture, which in turn caused a fire; instead, the evidence showed that he was able to control his car, drive it some distance from the location of the first accident, park it safely in a garage, get out of the car, and conceal himself. Hence, the police officers’ use of their vehicles subsequent to Lockett’s crash with the bus, while likely motivating Lockett to seek a good hiding place, did not actively cause Lockett’s car to catch fire and burn the condominiums connected to the garage.”
Judge Gleicher dissented on the grounds that Turner only requires a showing that a vehicle was actively, rather than passively, involved in the damage. Judge Gleicher reasoned that while she agreed that the bus was not actively involved in the damage, the facts revealed that the police vehicle was actively involved in the damage, given that the police vehicle chased Lockett, who then turned into the condominiums in an attempt to evade the police officer. Accordingly, Judge Gleicher reasoned that the insurer of the police vehicle should be liable for the property damage. Judge Gleicher explained that she believed that the majority’s analysis essentially required the plaintiff to demonstrate that the police vehicle was the direct and/or proximate cause, which is a higher causation standard than the “active use” causal nexus established in Turner.
