Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 106613 and 106614; Unpublished
Judges Hood, Beasley, and Shepherd; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's award of property protection benefits to compensate for fire damage to a garage premises caused by sparks from a cutting torch that was being used to structurally modify a car hauler trailer. The owner of the garage premises (Autohaul Industries, Inc.) had been hired by the owner of the trailer (Complete Auto Transit) to structurally modify several trailers so that the trailers would be lengthened by four or five feet thereby enabling each trailer to carry additional automobiles. The modification process entailed the removal of the ramps and hydraulic cylinders, insertion of new material to lengthen the trailer, and then the installation of rtew tracks and a new hydraulic system. While working on the structural modification, an employee of Autohaul was using a cutting torch to cut off metal pins that were holding the original hydraulic cylinders in place. Sparks from the torch ignited a nearby wall, thereby resulting in a fire that caused extensive damage to the premises of Autohaul.
The trial court ruled that the fire damage arose out of the maintenance of a motor vehicle, thereby obligating the insurer of the trailer to pay property protection insurance benefits under §3121(1) of the No-Fault Act In so holding, the trial court refused to apply a narrow definition of maintenance that would limit it only to those activities that were intended to keep the vehicle in its existing state rather than to improve the appearance or condition or performance of the vehicle. The court held:
"While it is true that in [Michigan Basic Property Insurance Association v Michigan Mutual (Item No. 610)] the original exhaust system was in need of replacement and in this case, there was nothing per se wrong with the mechanics of the trailer prior to commencing work on it, we do not believe that this factual distinction calls for a different result in this case. We will not muddy liability questions with examinations into whether the mechanical work performed was truly necessary (as opposed to optional) or whether the work served not only to preserve the vehicle's condition, but to go so far as to improve it. Such questions needlessly cloud the No-Fault Act's attempts at simplification. Accordingly, we decline defendant's invitation to partake in such inquiries. The trial court did not err in finding mat maintenance of the trailer was being performed at the time of the fire."
The court also found that the fire damage was caused by the maintenance operation, finding that the causal connection between the maintenance and the fire was more than incidental, fortuitous or but for.
