Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 177141; Unpublished
Judges Corrigan, MacKenzie, and Clulo; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (Other Motorized Devices) [§3101(2)(e)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals ruled that the tort abrogation provisions of §3135 of the no-fault statute barred plaintiff Allstate's subrogation claim for property damage to a house it insured. The house was damaged when an employee of the City of Detroit, operating a city-owned front-end loader in an alley, struck a utility pole causing a power line to snap and igniting a fire in the house. Plaintiff Allstate paid for the damage to the house under a homeowner's policy and then filed the subrogation action against the City of Detroit alleging negligence against the City and the city employee operating the vehicle. The trial court granted summary disposition on the negligence claim which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The court held that the tort abrogation provisions of §3135 apply to negligence claims filed against municipalities for negligent operation of municipally owned vehicles. Moreover, the court rejected the argument that the front-end loader involved in this case fell outside the scope of the no-fault act because it was allegedly not a "motor vehicle" as that term is used in §3101(2)(e) of the no-fault statute. That section defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle operated or designed for operation on a public highway by power other than muscular power that has more than two wheels. In rejecting the argument that the front-end loader was not a motor vehicle, the court stated:
"The term 'highway' is the generic name for all kinds of public ways including alleys.... Plaintiff’s pleadings do not aver that the alley in which [the city employee] was performing city work with city equipment was in fact a private alley . . . . Because a fair reading of the pleadings indicates that the front-end loader was being operated on a public highway at the time of the accident, it fails within the no-fault act's definition of a motor vehicle." The court also rejected the argument that plaintiff Allstate was entitled to reimbursement in the form of no-fault property protection insurance benefits for the reason that plaintiffs complaint did not include a claim for no-fault property protection benefits. Rather, Allstate sued the city in its capacity as the owner of a negligently operated vehicle.
