Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 53248; Published
Judges Brennan, Kelly, and J. M. Graves; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Kelly
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 124 Mich App 510; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage and Loss of Use) [§3121(1)]
Vehicles and Trailers, Including Motorcycles [§3123(1)(a)]
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous Opinion by Judge Kelly deals with the tort liability and contractual bailment liability of the owner of a tractor vehicle which caused injury to a backhoe loader the tractor was transporting. The backhoe was being carried by the tractor on a public roadway when the tractor struck the underside of an overpass causing extensive damage to the loader. The plaintiff in this case was the subrogee of the company which owned the loader and filed this action in tort and in contract against the owner of the tractor to recoup damages paid for damage to the loader.
Plaintiff subrogee did not contend that it was entitled to recover property protection insurance benefits against defendant because §3123(1) of the Act excludes from property protection insurance benefits damages to the contents of vehicles operated upon a public highway. The Court agreed that the backhoe loader was indeed "a content of defendant's tractor at the time of the accident."
The Court then addressed whether or not the defendant had any tort liability to plaintiff subrogee and held that no such liability existed because damage to the loader arose out of defendant's use of the tractor as a motor vehicle. Under §3135 and the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens v Tuttle, tort liability for property damage arising from the use of a motor vehicle has been abolished.
Finally, the Court considered whether or not the defendant had an liability to plaintiff subrogee under a contractual/ bailment theory. The Court held that the No-Fault Act does not abolish contractual liability, but is rather a substitute for common law tort remedies. The Court commented, "Nothing in the no-fault system relieves a motor vehicle operator of liability which he may have incurred in contract." Therefore, plaintiff’s theory that defendant breached expressed and implied contractual warranties in the governing contract of bailment stated a claim upon which relief could be granted thereby making the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant improper.
