Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 175953; Unpublished
Judges Gribbs, Hoekstra, and Stark; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that this construction accident property damage claim was subject to the no-fault act because it arose out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. Plaintiff’s crane sustained serious damage when it attempted to unload a 21 ton concrete slab from defendant's truck after defendant's employee told plaintiff that the slab weighed only 10 tons. Plaintiff argued that the defendant's negligence in misinforming plaintiff of the size and weight of the concrete slab was "non-motorist tort liability." The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and relied upon the Supreme Court's opinion in Bialochowski v Cross Concrete (Item No. 1021), wherein the court found that a concrete pumping truck was a motor vehicle for purposes of the no-fault act, and thus, the damage it caused was subject to the provisions of the no-fault statute. The court stated:
"We believe that Bialochowski interpretation of use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle' must be seen as having overruled the contrary interpretation in [Ford v Insurance Company of North America, 157 Mich App 692 (1987)]. In Bialochowski our Supreme Court concluded that the phrase 'use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle' is not limited to normal vehicular movement on a highway. Here, as in Bialochowski, the accident occurred while the vehicles were being used for their intended purpose."
