Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 97483; Unpublished
Judges Holbrook, Sawyer, and Batzer; 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:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals decided an important issue of first impression regarding the scope of property protection benefits payable under §3121 of the Act. Specifically, the court held that the phrase "loss of use" as set forth in §3121(3) and (5) includes "business interruption losses." The court noted that "loss of use" is not defined in the no-fault statute nor have the Michigan appellate courts had occasion to construe the term as used in the No-Fault Act. However, in the case of Wendt v Auto-Owners, 156 Mich App 19 (1986), the Court of Appeals held that a trial court erred in striking plaintiffs tort claim for loss of use of a vehicle and loss of profits resulting when an insurance company failed to timely settle an insurance claim. In addition, other jurisdictions have also defined "loss of use" to include recovery for lost profits. The court went on to say:
"The Michigan Legislature's choice of the phrase 'loss of use’ without any express or limiting language evinces its intent to utilize the term's generally accepted broad scope. Such a construction also serves to effectuate the purpose of the no-fault act Of course, to recover damages for business interruption, the amount of lost profits must be shown to a reasonable certainty."
In addition to the foregoing holding, the Court of Appeals also ruled that the trial court was correct in finding that, as a matter of law, the fire damage which was the subject of this claim, arose out of ownership, operation, maintenance or use of the motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, as required by §3121. The fire started several hours after a truck was taken to a repair facility for purposes of determining the cause of excessive smoke coming out of the engine. A mechanic worked on the truck for approximately an hour and a half, and in the process of attempting to repair the vehicle, placed a battery cable in the vicinity of the drive shaft. Plaintiff’s expert testified that after work hours, something happened to cause the battery cable to come into contact with the drive shaft producing a shower of sparks which ignited oil, causing the engine to catch on fire and burn the building down. Although defendant's expert disagreed with this theory, he was of the opinion that the fire started in the cab. In ruling that these facts were legally sufficient to compel payment of property protection benefits under §3121, the court focused on the fact that "all evidence introduced pointed to something internal to the truck as the cause of the fire." The court noted that the term "arising out of" as used in §3121 does not require as strict a showing of causation as does the concept of proximate cause. However, the relationship must be more than incidental, fortuitous or but for. A sufficient causal connection was established in this case, because the injury was foreseeably identifiable with the normal maintenance of the motor vehicle.
