Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 124017; Published
Judges Weaver, MacKenzie, and Gribbs; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 189 Mich App 458; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
No-Fault Insurer Claims for Reimbursement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiff Auto-Owners, as subrogee of its insured, was not entitled to recover property protection benefits from defendant Citizens Insurance Company for property damage occurring as a result of a motor vehicle fire that occurred during the maintenance of a motor vehicle and which destroyed a garage.
In this case, plaintiff’s subrogee brought his automobile to a repair facility for maintenance. While the mechanics were draining the vehicle's fuel line, gasoline fumes were ignited by the pilot light of a nearby hot water heater. The fire spread to the vehicle and eventually destroyed the garage. In denying no-fault benefits, the Court of Appeals relied upon the earlier decision in Central Mutual Insurance v Walter (Item No. 839), which also involved a fire caused when vehicle fuel was ignited by a hot water heater. There, the Court of Appeals did not find that the accident arose out of the maintenance of the vehicle.
In the present case, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that Walter was distinguishable because there the hot water heater was unrelated to the work of servicing automobiles in that its sole function was to supply hot water for the bathrooms. In the present case, the hot water heater was used in certain routine automobile maintenance procedures to wash and flush automotive parts. The court stated:
"We do not consider this difference to be a decisive one. Although the water heater may be a tool used to furnish hot water for maintaining vehicles, in this case there was no connection between the hot water heater and the maintenance that this vehicle was undergoing. Auto-Owners urges us to rule that there is a sufficient causal connection established between the maintenance and damage, if the maintenance of a motor vehicle is one of the causes, even though there are other causes. We instead hold that there must be a close and direct connection between the maintenance the vehicle was undergoing and the source of ignition. We conclude the relationship between maintenance and damage failed to rise above the level of 'incidental, fortuitous, or but for.'" (emphasis added)
