Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 72874; Published
Judges Beasley, Allen, and Breighner; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 136 Mich App 138; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage and Loss of Use) [§3121(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Garage Keeper’s Liability Act (MCL 256.541, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Breighner, the Court of Appeals held that the Garage Keeper's Liability Act (MCLA 256.541) was not a bar to this subrogation action filed by plaintiff, an insurer of a service station, against defendant, an insurer of an automobile, seeking recovery of property protection benefits from defendant pursuant to §3121 of the No-Fault Act for physical damage to the service station. The damage was caused by a fuel line explosion in defendant's insured automobile which, at the time, was in plaintiff’s garage for repair. The court examined the conflict in four Court of Appeals cases regarding the interrelationship between the No-Fault Act and the Garage Keeper's Liability Act. The court adopted the distinction drawn in the case of Buckeye Union v Johnson (item number 440) between damage to motor vehicles entrusted to a garage keeper and other types of property damage.
It is only damage to motor vehicles entrusted to a garage keeper which is subject to the Garage Keeper's Liability Act. Therefore, the court concluded that the Garage Keeper's Liability Act presents no obstacle to plaintiff’s recovery of property protection insurance benefits from defendant for damage to the service station.
Judge Allen filed a separate concurrence relying upon the reasoning in Liberty Mutual v INA (item number 541).
