Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 307699; Unpublished
Judges Servitto, Whitbeck, and Owens; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General/Miscellaneous [§3135]
Liability for Intentionally Caused Harm [§3135(3)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
Reformation of Insurance Contracts
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the trial court determination that certain trucking contractors who caused property damage to homeowners, were immune from liability under §3135(c) of the No-Fault Act, which abolishes tort liability arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, as long as the owner or registrant of the motor vehicle has maintained automobile insurance pursuant to §3101.
This claim was brought on behalf of certain property owners who alleged that the trucking contractors negligently contaminated a site by spilling contaminated materials onto public streets near their homes, damaging their properties. The truckers alleged by motion for summary disposition that they had immunity from liability under §3135(c) of the No-Fault Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court determination that the losses of the property owners “arose” from the truckers operation of their trucks as motor vehicles and the property owners had not pleaded any exceptions to the No-Fault Act. Therefore, summary disposition was affirmed.
The court also addressed the argument of the property owners that the chemical contamination was not an “accident” within the meaning of the No-Fault Act, and that it was in fact intentionally caused harm and that the No-Fault Act does not abolish tort liability for harm that a person intentionally causes to persons or property. MCL 500.3135(3)(a). The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of the truckers on the basis that the property owners had neither pled or shown evidence that the damages were caused intentionally. The court held that it was insufficient to prove “wilful or wanton conduct,” and that the No-Fault Act provides a strict test for intentional conduct which requires the actor both intend to cause the act and intend that the act cause harm.
