Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 97608; Unpublished
Judges Gillis, Holbrook, and Andrews; 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 reversed a trial court grant of summary disposition, and held that the no-fault insurer would be liable under §3121 for property damage caused when a parked vehicle started a fire.
The vehicle involved, a 1926 Studebaker, was being used as an advertising gimmick parked in front of a furniture store each night; the vehicle was driven through the parking lot into the furniture warehouse. At that time, the store manager would disconnect certain parts of the engine, including the battery cable, pursuant to the owner's instructions. One night, the battery cable arced and ignited fuel which had leaked from the Studebaker. A fire resulted, the store's fire insurer paid the damage, and then filed a claim against the no-fault insurer of the vehicle.
Allstate moved for summary disposition claiming that the Studebaker was used for advertising purposes only, and, therefore, was not being used as a motor vehicle as required by §3121. Plaintiff claimed that it was a fully operational motor vehicle which had been driven into the warehouse, and, subsequently, started a fire. The trial court granted summary disposition apparently on the basis that the Studebaker was not being used as a motor vehicle at the time of the fire.
In reliance upon the Supreme Court decision in Michigan Mutual v Carson City (Item No. 799), the court held that Allstate was required to pay no-fault insurance benefits for the property damage because the vehicle was being maintained when the property damage occurred. The court held that if the fire resulted from the act of disconnecting the battery cable to stop the Studebaker, and the battery cable arced igniting fuel which had leaked from the Studebaker, plaintiff’s insured's damages would have arisen from the Studebaker's character as a motor vehicle. Consequently, the trial court improperly granted defendant's motion for summary disposition.
