Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 57799; Published
Judges Danhof, Bronson, and Ernst; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 117 Mich App 361; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Property Owned by Named Insured [§3123(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous Opinion by Judge Bronson raised "a question first impression" concerning the proper construction of the property protection insurance household exclusion provisions of the Act [§3123(1)(b)]. The case involved serious fire damage to a house which resulted from the maintenance of a motor vehicle situated in the garage of the house. The vehicle was owned and insured by the owner's son. The fire was caused when gasoline came in contact with the broken mechanic's lightbulb. The Court of Appeals sustained the defendant's contention that property protection insurance benefits for fire damage to the home were not payable because of the household exclusion provisions of §3123(1)(b). Under that section, property protection benefits are excluded if the damaged property is owned by a person named in the auto policy, the person's spouse, or a relative of either domiciled in the same household, such person was the owner, registrant, or operator "of a vehicle involved in the motor vehicle accident out of which the property damage arose." The Court rejected the argument that this exclusion does not pertain to property damage caused by the maintenance of a motor vehicle. The Court stated that the exclusionary language was clear and does not deal with how the loss occurred but rather, the status of the property that was damaged. In addition, the Court ruled that this exclusion did not violate public policy.
[Author's Comment: The holding in this case should be carefully analyzed in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Heard v State Farm (item number 538). Query, whether or not the Supreme Court's analysis in Heard would suggest that the vehicle in this case was parked and therefore "not involved" in the property damage. There is specific discussion in Heard about whether or not parked vehicles are "involved" in accidents for purposes of the payment of property protection benefits.]
