Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #319680; Published
Judges Meter, Sawyer, and Boonstra; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 310 Mich App 411; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability for Excess Economic Loss by a Nonresident Tortfeasor [§3135(3)(d)]
Liability for Excess Economic Loss for Motor Vehicles [§3135(3)(e)]
$500,000 Cap for Certain Nonresident Claims [§3163(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held the non-resident owner of a truck being driven in Michigan could not recover economic damages for the loss of the vehicle’s use following an accident, because economic damages of this type are not compensable under MCL 500.3135(3)(d).
Plaintiff, a Georgia resident, owned a truck that was destroyed in an accident on a Michigan highway. Defendant State Farm was the at-fault driver’s insurer and denied plaintiff’s claim for economic damages. Plaintiff apparently did not claim PIP benefits. Plaintiff filed this action, maintaining he was entitled to lost income arising from his inability to lease the truck. State Farm argued that §3135(3)(d) did not pertain to collision damage to a vehicle, or to lost income resulting from such damage. State Farm asserted that §3135(3)(e) limited plaintiff’s compensation to $500, and that plaintiff’s claim was barred because State Farm had already paid plaintiff $500. The trial court granted State Farm’s motion for summary disposition.
The Court of Appeals held that the economic damages sought by plaintiff were not compensable under the No-Fault Act, and that summary disposition was properly granted for State Farm.
In this regard, the Court of Appeals noted the only issue on appeal was whether §3135(3)(d) allowed plaintiff to sue in tort for economic damages. The court said:
“[U]nder the specific language of MCL 500.3135(3)(d) … tort liability is abolished except as to ‘[d]amages for economic loss by a nonresident in excess of the personal protection insurance benefits provided under [MCL 500.3163(4)].’ … When looked at as a whole, it is clear that the provision contains the restrictive clauses ‘by a nonresident’ and ‘in excess of the personal protection insurance benefits provided under [§3163(4)].’ … In MCL 500.3135(3)(d), the phrase ‘[d]amages for economic loss’ is the last antecedent before the phrases ‘by a nonresident’ and ‘in excess of the personal protection insurance benefits provided under [MCL 500.3163(4)].’ … Pursuant to the last antecedent rule, the phrases ‘by a nonresident’ and ‘in excess of the personal protection insurance benefits provided under [MCL 500.3163(4)]’ apply to the phrase ‘[d]amages for economic loss.’ … Therefore, the phrase ‘[d]amages for economic loss’ refers to damages for economic loss ‘by a nonresident in excess of the personal protection insurance benefits provided under [MCL 500.3163(4)].’ … So, plaintiff as a non-resident could only recover for economic damage in excess of the benefits provided under MCL 500.3163(4). … In addition, interpreting MCL 500.3135(3)(d) to allow a nonresident to sue for economic damages of a type other than the personal protection benefits provided under MCL 500.3163(4) would be to abandon common sense, and common sense should not be abandoned in statutory construction. … Specifically, under MCL 500.3135, residents of Michigan cannot sue for such economic damages; therefore, it would lack common sense to construe MCL 500.3135(3)(d) as allowing nonresidents to sue for such economic damages.”
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals said it was “clear” that §3135(3)(d) did not provide a cause of action for plaintiff. The court concluded:
“Because plaintiff was never provided personal protection benefits under MCL 500.3163(4), it is impossible for plaintiff to be entitled to pursue economic damages in excess of those provided under MCL 500.3163(4).”
