Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 190477; Published
Judges Hood, Saad, and T. S. Eveland; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Saad
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 225 Mich App 629; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage and Loss of Use) [§3121(1)]
Certain Damages to Utilities [§3123(3)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published Opinion by Judge Saad, the Court of Appeals held that the property protection provision of §3123(3) which excludes benefits for property damage to utility transmission lines, wires, or cables arising from the failure of a municipality, utility company or cable television company to comply with the requirements of MCLA 247.186, did not apply on private property. The provisions of MCLA 247.186 places restrictions on the location of poles or other structures and prohibits any wires, cables or other fixtures to be placed at "less height than J 5 feet above any part of the traveled portion of the road." In this case, the court found that the wires at issue that were damaged by Spartan's trucks were not located over a "traveled portion of the road and therefore the language of §3123(3) which would exclude coverage for property protection benefits did not apply.
Detroit Edison sought property protection benefits under the no-fault act from Spartan following an accident on a private driveway. This accident damaged Edison's wires and transformer poles. Spartan, a self-insured, denied coverage on the ground that §3123(3) excluded coverage where there had been a violation of MCLA 247.186 which imposes minimum height requirements on cables and wires over the "traveled portion of the roadway." The case turned on whether or not the wires in question were located over a traveled portion of the road within the meaning of MCLA 247.186.
In affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of Edison, the Court of Appeals held that the phrase "traveled portion of the road" as used in MCLA 247.186 did not include a private driveway or road. Because that term is not defined in either the no-fault act or the statute regulating highway obstructions and encroachments, the Court of Appeals interpreted that phrase using its "plain and ordinary meaning within the content of the statute." A plain reading of the term "traveled portion of the road" defeats Spartan's argument and supports Edison's view and the trial court's conclusion that the statutory provision applies only to low hanging utility wires located over public rights-of-way. As such, since MCLA 247.186 was not violated, the exclusion for property protection benefits contained in section 3123 is inapplicable.
