Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 129927; Unpublished
Judges Holbrook, Jr., Brennan, and Cavanagh; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
Legislative Purpose and Intent
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals denied property protection benefits from defendant's automobile no-fault insurance where the property damaged was an "asphalt paving machine" owned by plaintiff’s insured. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition on the grounds that the no-fault act, §3123(1)(a) precludes recovery of property damage to "vehicles ... operated or designed for operation upon a public highway by power other than muscular power...."
In holding that an asphalt paving machine was in fact a "vehicle" within the meaning of §3123(1)(a), the court relied upon the definition of a vehicle contained in MCLA 257.79 which provides that a vehicle is one "in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway." The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the statutory definition of "motor vehicle" found in MCLA 500.3101(2) was applicable; that argument having been consistently rejected in previous decisions, see, Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Company v Allstate Insurance Company. 417 Mich 590 (1983).
Therefore, since the asphalt paving machine was a vehicle within the meaning of the exclusion for property damage, §3123(1)(a), the court upheld the trial court's grant of summary disposition denying recovery of the property damage caused by the collision between the machine and defendant's automobile.