Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 56629; Published
Judges Allen, R. B. Burns, and Gillis; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 117 Mich App 197; Link to Opinion
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage and Loss of Use) [§3121(1)]
Garage Keeper’s Liability Act (MCL 256.541, et seq.)
This Opinion deals with another issue which has produced a split of authority in the Court of Appeals, to-wit, whether the Garage Keeper's Liability Act or the No-Fault Insurance Act controls when a fire occurs in the course of a garage keeper's work on a vehicle insured under the no-Fault Act on which maintenance is being performed. The case of Liberty Mutual v Allied Truck (item number 361) held that the Garage Keeper's Liability Act controls. The case of Buckeye Union v Johnson (item number 440) held that the No-Fault Act controls.
This panel of the Court of Appeals found the Buckeye Union decision to be more persuasive. The Court held, "When the legislature enacted a no-fault system, the presumption of fault established by the Garage Keeper's Liability Act became meaningless in circumstances where the damage was covered by the No-Fault Act The No-Fault Act provides coverage for 'accidental damage to tangible property arising out of the maintenance of a motor vehicle as a moor vehicle.' As the plaintiff pleaded a fact situation that established a causal connection between the damage and the maintenance, the No-Fault Act controlled."
Judge R. B. Burns dissented on the basis of Liberty Mutual v Allied Truck.