Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 173734; Unpublished
Judges Hood, Marilyn Kelly, and Saad; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General / Miscellaneous [§3116]
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage And Loss Of Use) [§3121(1)]
Distribution of Loss, Reimbursement and Indemnification Among PPI Insurers [§3127]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court holding that the no-fault insurer was not entitled to obtain reimbursement through subrogation for property protection insurance benefits paid pursuant to §3121 of the no-fault act, because the criteria for the reimbursement and indemnification among insurers for personal protection benefits in tort claims were not met.
Auto Owners was the insurer of a van which caught fire in an auto repair shop while employees of the shop were attempting to remove a leaking gas tank from the van. The fire caused property damage in excess of $513,725. Auto Owners paid for the losses caused by the fire to all claimants pursuant to its statutory and contractual obligations. Then, as subrogee of the van owner, Auto Owners brought this action asserting negligence on the part of the auto repair shop in removing the gas tank. Auto Owners claimed that it was entitled to recover from the auto repair shop the amount it paid to the various claimants as a result of the fire. The auto repair shop argued that the claim was barred by §3116 of the act which precludes claims for reimbursement by insurers.
In affirming the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant, the Court of Appeals held that the obligation to pay property protection benefits was governed by §3121 which provides that:
Under property protection insurance an insurer is liable to pay benefits for accidental damage to tangible property arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle subject to the provisions of this section and §3123, §3125 and §3127. (emphasis added)
The provisions of §3127 of the act explicitly make §3116 applicable to property protection claims. According to §3116, the insurance carrier responsible for no-fault property protection benefits may realize reimbursement from an insured's third party tort claim only if: (1) the accident occurred out-of-state, (2) the action is against an uninsured owner or operator, or (3) involved an intentional tort. Since there was no dispute that this case does not fall into one of the exceptions to the statutory bar to claims for reimbursement by insurers, the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant was upheld.
