Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 87928; Published
Judges Gribbs, Cynar, and Kaufman; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 157 Mich App 692; 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 affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant in a case involving a claim for property protection benefits alleged to have arisen out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle under §3121(1).
The undisputed facts in this case involve the circumstances which lead to an explosion on the plant site of plaintiff Ford Motor Company. A delivery truck insured by defendant INA arrived at the Ford Motor Plant to deliver 2,500 gallons of catalyst in 1973. Following Ford procedures, the truck arrived at the shipping department, Ford's quality control department cross-checked the contents of the truck, and then the material was pumped by Ford's pumping equipment from the truck into a tank on the Ford plant. A Ford employee had incorrectly pointed out a resin tank in which the material was to be unloaded. After the transfer of the catalyst from the tank truck to the resin tank was complete, the driver left the premises and shortly thereafter an explosion occurred causing property damage.
The issue on appeal was whether there was a causal relationship between the truck and the property damage. In reliance upon the often cited decision of Kangas v Aetna Casualty, 64 Mich App 1 (1975), the Court of Appeals held that the property damage in this case did not "arise out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle." The Court also rejected Ford Motor Company's argument that the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle must include the loading and unloading of the vehicle. Construing the provisions of §3121, the Court held that the Legislature did not include loading and unloading within the language of that section, as it did in the parked vehicle exclusion of §3106(l)(d). The Court stated that it was reluctant to declare a legislative intent to expand "use" to include any loading or unloading as Ford would allege. Further, the Court held that there was no causal connection between the accident and the act of unloading. Therefore, the No-Fault Act did not provide coverage to the property owner in this situation.
