Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 126373; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Kelly, and Neff; 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)]
Vehicles and Trailers, Including Motorcycles [§3123(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals applied the "dual purpose vehicle rule" and held that a pull truck with an attached winch that is used to haul a house on dollies is a motor vehicle for purposes of the no-fault statute, and thus, property damage to a bridge that occurred while the stationary truck was pulling the house with the winch was compensable under the no-fault statute. At the time the injury occurred, the truck was in a stationary position and was blocked while the winch was pulling the house. Suddenly the bridge collapsed resulting in property damage.
The court relied upon the Supreme Court's interpretation of the dual purpose vehicle rule as set forth in Bialochowski v Cross Concrete (Item No. 1021) and noted that the Supreme Court made it clear that coverage of a dual purpose vehicle is not necessarily precluded solely because there is no vehicular movement at the time of the accident. In applying this rule to the case at bar, the court stated: "In this case, although the pull truck was stationary while the winch was operating, it could have been driven away with little adjustment. The winch itself was operated by the engine of the truck and was controlled from inside the cab. The truck was a dual purpose vehicle because winching a structure with it was one of the purposes for which it had been designed. This case presents a situation more similar to that in Bialochowski than in Winter or Johnston. We conclude that the accident occurred while the truck was being used as a motor vehicle."
