DIALLO v. LaROCHELLE
310 Mich. App. 411
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On April 16, 2011 a northbound driver (Wrozek) crossed into the southbound lane and collided head-on with a truck owned by Diallo; Diallo alleged Wrozek was intoxicated and sought damages for the total loss of the truck and lost income.
- Diallo is a Georgia (nonresident) claimant; State Farm insured Wrozek and paid $500, citing MCL 500.3135(3)(e).
- Diallo sent letters asserting entitlement to economic damages under MCL 500.3135(3)(d); State Farm denied liability.
- Diallo sued the estate of Wrozek and State Farm; State Farm moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
- The trial court granted State Farm’s (C)(8) motion; Diallo appealed, arguing MCL 500.3135(3)(d) creates an exception permitting nonresidents to recover economic loss (not PIP) in tort.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 500.3135(3)(d) permits a nonresident to sue in tort for economic losses distinct from personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits | MCL 500.3135(3)(d) allows recovery of economic loss by a nonresident — Diallo seeks economic damages (vehicle loss, lost income) and thus may sue in tort | The statute permits recovery only for economic losses that exceed PIP benefits provided under MCL 500.3163(4); Diallo received no PIP under that provision, so (3)(d) does not apply | Court held (3)(d) applies only to economic losses in excess of PIP benefits under MCL 500.3163(4); Diallo cannot recover because he did not have PIP benefits subject to that excess threshold |
| Whether dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(8) was appropriate | Diallo argued factual development could support recovery under (3)(d) | State Farm argued Diallo’s complaint failed as a matter of law because the statutory exception does not encompass his claimed losses | Court affirmed (C)(8) dismissal: no factual development could salvage a claim because the statute does not create the asserted cause of action |
Key Cases Cited
- American Alternative Ins. Co. v. York, 470 Mich 28 (recognition that MCL 500.3135 abolished tort liability under the no-fault system)
- Beaudrie v. Henderson, 465 Mich 124 (standard that a (C)(8) motion is proper when no factual development could justify recovery)
- Gauntlett v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 242 Mich App 172 (statutory-construction principles; statutory language controls)
- Greater Bethesda Healing Springs Ministry v. Evangel Builders & Constr. Managers, L.L.C., 282 Mich App 410 (application of the last antecedent rule in statutory interpretation)
- Gray v. Chrostowski, 298 Mich App 769 (use of expressio unius est exclusio alterius in construing no-fault exceptions)
- Jager v. Rostagno Trucking Co., Inc., 272 Mich App 419 (incorporation by reference: when a statute incorporates another provision, that provision must be interpreted as part of the statute)