Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 46064; Published
Judges Riley, Kaufman, and MacKenzie; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 103 Mich App 682; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
No Lien as to Non Motorist Tort Recoveries [§3116]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
No-Fault Insurer Claims for Reimbursement
CASE SUMMARY:
In an Opinion by Judge Dorothy Comstock Riley, the Court of Appeals held that a no-fault insurance company had no right, under §3116 of the Act, to be reimbursed out of a plaintiff’s subsequent products liability tort recovery. The Court relied upon the previous decision of the Court of Appeals in Schwark v Lilly, item number 218, and held that the provisions of the No-Fault Act regarding abrogation of tort liability (§3135) and reimbursement to no-fault carriers (§3116) do not apply to products liability tort recoveries. The Court stated, "We conclude that the rationale of Schwark is equally appropriate in the instant case. The wording of §3135 makes it unlikely that the legislature intended to extend the no-fault abolishment of tort liability to products liability cases. As was true in Schwarzk, [the product manufacturer's] liability did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of an automobile. Instead their liability arose 'on account of injury to person or property caused by or resulting from the manufacture, construction, design of a product or a component of a product' MCLA 600.2945. Since we must construe §3116 in light of §3135, §3116 should have no impact on the products liability recovery, and reimbursement is, therefore, precluded as we are convinced mat the settlement placed on the record in Federal District Court compensated the injured persons only for noneconomic damages."
[Author's Comment: The decision in this case further demonstrates that an earlier opinion of the Court of Appeals in Citizens v Tuttle, item number 299, constitutes a minority view. That Opinion held what a non-automobile defendant was permitted to claim the tort immunity protections of the No-Fault Act This issue is squarely presented in the next decision.]
