Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 61308; Published
Judges Danhof; Kaufman, and Riley; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 122 Mich App 420; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage and Loss of Use) [§3121(1)]
Interest Penalty on PPI Benefits [§3142]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous Opinion by Judge Kaufman dealt with the liability of a no-fault carrier to provide property protection insurance benefits under §3121 as a result of a garage fire which occurred when a vehicle owner was attempting to replace a worn out muffler system with a new "header" exhaust system. The vehicle owner was performing this repair operation on his own private vehicle at his employer's maintenance garage after working hours. The exhaust system of the vehicle was "rotting away" and was in need of replacing when the owner was attempting to remove the exhaust system with a cutting torch, a fire resulted causing substantial damage to the garage. The plaintiff, MBPIA, was the insurer for the premises and paid for the damage and then sought reimbursement from the owner's no-fault insurer. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
In ruling that the defendant no-fault insurer was liable to pay for the damage under the property protection insurance provisions of the No-Fault Act, the Court held that the damage here clearly arose out of the "maintenance" of a motor vehicle, thus satisfying the provisions of §3121. The Court rejected the defendant's argument that "maintenance" does not include the installation of nonessential equipment or "nonstock" equipment The defendant argued that such a limited definition of the word maintenance was mandated by the previous Court of Appeals decision in Liberty Mutual v Allied Truck (item number 361). However, this panel held that any such limitation on the definition of "maintenance" had been expressly rejected by the Supreme Court's opinion in Miller v Auto-Owners (item number 431). In Miller; the Court stated that the concept of maintenance "covers the act of repairing the covered vehicle" and included the act of replacing shock absorbers.
In the case at bar, the Court held that if it were to accept a definition of maintenance which turned upon whether or not the act involved replacing essential versus nonessential parts or stock parts versus replacement parts, the objective of the No-Fault Act to simplify liability questions would be thwarted by unnecessarily fine distinctions.
The Court also refused to resolve a conflict of authority as to whether the No-Fault Act is subordinate to the Garage Keeper's Act. Due to the fact that the damage in this case did not involve a customer's vehicle, the Garage Keeper's Act was inapplicable.
Finally, the Court held that the successful plaintiff in this case was not entitled to interest under §3142 of the no-fault statute as that provision only awarded interest in the case of personal insurance protection benefits, not property protection benefits. However, judgment interest under the RJA was properly recoverable.
