Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 130295; Published
Judges Reilly, Michael J. Kelly, and Cavanagh; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 198 Mich App 650; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage and Loss of Use) [§3121(1)]
General Rule of Priority [§3125]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published Opinion by Judge Cavanagh, the Court of Appeals addressed the question of which insurers were obligated to pay property protection benefits under §3121 of the No-Fault Act where property damage was caused at the accident site, arising from a multi-vehicle accident.
Royal claimed that it should not be required to pay a share of the property protection benefits because the vehicle insured by Royal was stolen and was being operated by a thief when the collision occurred. In rejecting this argument, the court held that §3121 determines that "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." Further, §3125 provides that injured parties can claim benefits from the "insurers of owners or registrants of vehicles involved in the accident; and insurers of operators of vehicles involved in the accident." Pursuant to the holding in Citizens Insurance Company v Lowery, 159 Mich App 611 (1987), an insurer of a vehicle that is stolen is the party directly responsible for payment of property damage. Therefore, Royal, as the insurer of the stolen vehicle, was responsible for its share of the damage which resulted from the accident. The fact that the vehicle was being operated by a thief when the accident occurred, had no affect on Royal's responsibility.
The court also rejected an argument that the City of Ferndale should be required to pay property protection benefits because a Ferndale police car was "involved" in the accident. The court concluded that the accident did not result from the police use of a vehicle, but from the thief’s act of fleeing from the police. Consequently, the court could not conclude that the accident was "forseeably identifiable" with a normal use of a motor vehicle. The involvement of a police cruiser in the circumstances was merely fortuitous and any connection between the use of the police vehicle and the property damage was incidental. In rejecting the argument that the City was liable, the court distinguished what it said was dicta from the recent case of Auto Owners Insurance Company v Titan Indemnity Corp, 195 Mich App 428 (1992), which had concluded that an accident involving a police chase had been caused by the "operation of the motor vehicle." In that case, the Titan, supra, panel had determined that the city's high speed "chase policy" was not a cause of the accident Having concluded that, it was not necessary for the court to make any determination as to whether or not the police car involved in the crash was the cause of the accident.
