Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v Tanton; (USD-PUB, 9/10/1980; RB #467)

Print

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Published  
Judge James Harvey; Reported Opinion  
Official Federal Reporter Citation: 496 F. Supp. 77; Link to Opinion alt   


STATUTORY INDEXING:  
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage and Loss of Use) [§3121(1)]  
Vehicles and Trailers, Including Motorcycles [§3123(1)(a)]

TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable   


CASE SUMMARY:  
In this reported Opinion, Judge Harvey held that under the property protection provisions of the No-Fault Act, a railroad was entitled to recover property protection insurance benefits for damages caused to its train equipment and surrounding property under its control as a result of a collision with a truck insured by a Michigan no-fault insurance policy. A train is not a "vehicle" under the exclusion provisions of §3123 and is, thus, entitled to receive property protection benefits under §3121.


Michigan auto accident attorney Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit SinasDramis.com.

Copyright © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)

FacebookInstagram