Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 83350; Published
Judges Shepherd, Kelly, and Tahvonen; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 159 Mich App 611; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
PIP Liens Regarding Intentionally Caused Injury [§3116(2)]
Liability for Intentionally Caused Harm [§3135(3)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
No-Fault Insurer Claims for Reimbursement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Tahvonen, the Court of Appeals held that the no-fault insurer of a stolen vehicle that was required to pay property protection insurance benefits as a result of damage inflicted by the thief who drove the vehicle, was entitled to maintain a legal action for reimbursement from those persons responsible for the damage. The Court held that "the no-fault insurer stands in the property owners' shoes and has the same right of reimbursement as the property owners. This right to reimbursement is similar to the right of indemnity. . . .We note that technically Citizens should have sued in its own name for reimbursement of the personal property protection benefits rather than as subrogee of [the vehicle owner]. However, defendant has not been ignorant of the real object of Citizens' lawsuit, and given that defendant raises this issue herself for the first time in this Court, we refuse to elevate form over substance to disallow Citizens' cause of action for reimbursement of property protection benefits paid for damage done by defendant's minor son."
The Court went on to hold that the mother of the thief had liability under the parental liability statute (MCLA 600.2913) which liability is not abrogated by the tort limitation provisions of §3135. The Court held that, inasmuch as the thief s actions amounted to "reckless, willful and wanton misconduct," such tortious conduct is specifically exempted by the "intentional wrongdoing" language of §3135(2) (a). The Court held that "willful and wanton misconduct is in the same class as intentional wrongdoing. Intentionally caused harm to persons or property is an exception to the no-fault act's abolition of tort liability. Because acts resulting from willful and wanton misconduct fall within the class of intentional acts, defendant's tort liability in the instant case is not abolished by the no-fault act. In addition, under such circumstances, a no-fault carrier has a right to subtraction from or reimbursement of property protection benefits. MCL 500.3116(2); MSA 24.13116(2).
