Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 185170; Unpublished
Judges McDonald, Griffin, and Bandstra; 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)]
Proper Defendant [§3121]
Calculation of PPI Benefits [§3121(3) (5)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict awarding property protection benefits to plaintiff under §3121 and §3123 of the no-fault statute. The claim involved damage to a semi-truck that was parked. The court rendered two holdings. First, the court held that it is the insurance company of the striking vehicle that is ultimately liable for payment of any property protection benefits owed by its insured. In these cases, the judgment should not enter against the named insured, but rather against the insurer. The court noted that there was a conflict between two earlier Court of Appeals cases as to whether it was necessary to name the insurer as a party defendant in a property protection insurance benefits case. In the earlier decision of Totzkay v DuBois, [Item No. 438], the court indicated that it was not necessary to name the insurer under §3121 when benefits were sought under the statute. However, in the later case of Maui Awdish, Inc v Williams [Item No. 544], the court concluded that only the insurer and not the insured driver is a proper defendant. In the case at bar, the court declined to "resolve this split of authority" because the defendant insurer was named as a parry to the instant action. The only impropriety in the case below was that the trial court entered a judgment against the named insured and not the insurance company. Therefore, the Court of Appeals remanded for entry of judgment solely against the defendant insurers.
Second, the court held that recovery for loss of use under §3121 includes recovery for lost profits. However, the amount of lost profits must be shown to a reasonable certainty. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the jury verdict was defective because it did not explicitly state that loss of use damages were limited to a reasonable time. The court noted that overall the instruction correctly stated the law because, "the trial court explicitly instructed the jury that loss of use included reasonable loss of profits and business interruption losses, and that a person has a duty to use ordinary care to minimize damages after the person's property has been damaged." Although the court did not explicitly state that damages were limited to a reasonable time, this is inherent in a reasonable understanding of the trial court's instructions that damages for loss of use include reasonable loss of profits.
