Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 71235; Published
Opinion by J. Kavanagh; 7-0 (with J. Ryan and J. Boyle Concurring with C.J. Williams)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 421 Mich 144; 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 Opinion by Justice Kavanagh, the Supreme Court ruled that the insurer of a motor vehicle is responsible to pay property protection insurance benefits under §3121 of the no-fault statute for property damage to a maintenance garage arising out of the repair of a motor vehicle in the course of a business of maintaining motor vehicles. The motor vehicle involved in this case was a tanker truck which was taken to a tank truck maintenance garage. During the course of repairing the tanker truck, a fire started which caused damage, not only to the truck but to the garage premises. In holding that the no-fault insurer of the truck was responsible to pay for damages to the premises, the court noted that the Michigan no-fault statute clearly provides that property protection insurance benefits are payable for damage arising out of "maintenance" of a motor vehicle. Furthermore, in the previous decision in Miller v Auto-Owners, the court held that maintenance includes the act of repairing a motor vehicle.
The court also held that the Garagekeeper's Liability Act (MCLA 256.541, et seq) is irrelevant That statute alone does not render a garagekeeper liable. In addition, it only applies to damage to motor vehicles and not damage to the garagekeeper's premises.
The court also held that it made no difference that the motor vehicle involved was "specially equipped" or that the repair work focused on an aspect of the special equipment The court stated:
"When a specially equipped motor vehicle is brought in for maintenance service and work is being performed on it, it is of little consequence which part is being serviced. Whether the maintenance work is concerned with its motor, drive train, radio, heater, oil delivery equipment, upholstery, or other part of the vehicle, the Michigan no-fault act contemplates coverage for damages arising out of such maintenance."
Finally, the court held that the question of whether or not the property damage actually "arose out of maintenance" should be resolved by the trial court.
Chief Justice Williams concurred in a separate opinion. He argued that the result reached by Justice Kavanagh was legally correct, but that it flies in the face of the objectives of the no-fault act and "good public policy."
