Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #320194; Docket #320482; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Fort Hood, and Gadola; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability for Economic Loss Caused by Uninsured Tortfeasors [§3135(3)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held the owner of a logging machine that constituted a motor vehicle could not assert tort immunity as a defense under MCL 500.3135(3), because the logging machine/vehicle did not have in effect the security required by MCL 500.3101.
The decedent was killed when his vehicle rear-ended a specialized logging machine known as a feller-buncher. At the time of the accident, the roadway was reportedly dark and there were areas of patchy fog. Plaintiff, the decedent-driver’s estate, brought a wrongful death action against defendants, the operator and owner of the feller-buncher. The case went to trial and plaintiff moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court granted at the close of proofs. A jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff and the trial court entered a $2.8 million judgment. Defendants moved for a new trial or remittitur, which the trial court denied. On appeal, defendants claimed the trial court erred in finding they were not entitled to partial immunity for tort liability under §3135(3).
The Court of Appeals held that defendants were not entitled to partial immunity from tort liability under §3135(3). In so holding, the court did not elaborate on its reason for concluding that the feller-buncher was a vehicle, and only noted that defendants “seem[ed] to argue that the feller-buncher was a motor vehicle.”
On this basis, the Court of Appeals found that the absence of no-fault insurance for the feller-buncher precluded defendants from asserting a tort immunity defense. In this regard, the court said:
“Because the partial immunity from tort liability established by MCL 500.3135(3) applies only to a motor vehicle with respect to which the security required by MCL 500.3101 is in effect, and because the feller buncher was not covered by a no-fault policy, defendants were not entitled to the partial immunity established by MCL 500.3135(3).”
In conclusion, while the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on the no-fault immunity issue, it reversed and remanded the matter on issues dealing with comparative negligence and the jury instructions.
