Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 102421; Unpublished
Judges Weaver, Maher, and Simon; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability of Non-Motorist Defendants [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant Melton Motors in a case where property damage was alleged to have been caused by negligent repair work.
In this case, Melton Motors was alleged to have negligently installed a fuel injector line in the insured's motor vehicle. This negligence was alleged to have caused an engine fire which caused property damage to the vehicle, and to a residence. Allstate, as the homeowner's insurance company paid the fire loss. It then became subrogated to the rights of its insured and sued defendant Melton Motors for the negligent installation of the fuel injector line. Melton Motors requested summary disposition on the grounds that the Michigan No-Fault Act barred any tort claim arising out of maintenance of the vehicle.
On appeal, the court reversed the grant of summary disposition in favor of Melton, and held that a cause of action for negligent installation of the fuel line was not barred by the No-Fault Act, Section 3135. The court stated that whether the damage arose out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle was irrelevant to the issue here where the defendant's negligence was a separate and independent cause of damage to the property.
The Court of Appeals held that the No-Fault Act has not abolished non-motorist tortfeasor liability for negligent repair of a motor vehicle. The No-Fault Act abolished tort liability for a motorist only, not a non-motorist. Citizens Insurance v Tuttle (Item No. 391). The court also relied upon its previous holding in Coleman v Franzon, 141 Mich App 99 (1985), imposing liability on a non-motorist tortfeasor garage owner and mechanic. The court also held irrelevant the fact that Melton Motors did maintain a no-fault liability policy for its automobiles. None of those vehicles covered by the no-fault policy were involved in the incident, and the purchase of such insurance was not intended to cover defendant Melton's conduct as a garage owner and mechanic.
