Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 112566; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Shepherd, and McDonald; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Leased / Rented Vehicles
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition denying plaintiff’s claim for property damages it paid as a consequence of a negligently maintained leased trailer.
Plaintiffs insured leased a trailer from U-Haul Company, which malfunctioned and caused property damage to the insured's motor vehicle. Farmers compensated its insured for the property damages and sued U-Haul seeking recovery of its payment as subrogee. Plaintiff claimed that negligent maintenance of the trailer by U-Haul caused the leased trailer to swerve out of control and damage the insured's motor vehicle in an accident occurring in the state of Tennessee. The trial court found that plaintiff’s losses were barred by the Michigan No-Fault Act, §3135, which abolishes tort liability arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use "within this state" of a motor vehicle with respect to which the security required by the act was in effect.
The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s contention that the tort liability abolition did not apply to accidents occurring outside of the state of Michigan. The statute clearly states that it applies to the maintenance of a motor vehicle within the state of Michigan, and it was not contested that the maintenance of the trailer would have occurred in the state of Michigan.
The court also rejected plaintiffs argument that the trailer was not a motor vehicle at the time of the allegedly negligent maintenance. The court found that under §3101(2)(e) the term "motor vehicle" includes trailers which are operated upon or designed to operate upon a public highway.
Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiffs argument that defendant was a vehicle repair facility and remained liable for its negligent maintenance of the vehicle. Under Citizens Insurance v Tuttle, 411 Mich 536 (1981), the Supreme Court held that §3135 was not intended to abolish the right to recover for non-economic losses caused by a mechanic's failure to properly repair a motor vehicle. However, here the Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant, U-Haul, was not a motor vehicle repair facility. There was nothing in the record to indicate that U-Haul was anything but a vehicle rental company. Further, the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Act expressly excludes those who repair vehicles of a single commercial establishment which is not engaged in the business of vehicle repair work. MCLA 257.1302a.
Consequently, plaintiffs lawsuit is governed by the No-Fault Act and plaintiffs claim was properly dismissed by the trial court.
