*1 46 108 Mich 46 v JOHNSON INSURANCE COMPANY BUCKEYE UNION v JOHNSON INSURANCE COMPANY HOME 8, 1980, Rap- 48721, at Grand 49891. Submitted October Docket No. 27, July appeal applied ids. Decided 1981. Leave for. truck, Morgan, to Kenneth E. took the truck owner of a Olen Ford, Johnson, repair doing of a fuel business as Johnson bulb, light exploded, repair, During hit course of fuel line. causing damage. Buckeye ignited Union extensive a fire Company, Company, and several Home Insurance Insurance damages resulting paid from who claims for other insurers contents, fire, buildings mostly damages nearby and their against subrogees brought Johnson of their insureds actions Company, Security against the no-fault Insurance United Corporation brought Morgan’s Murphy insurer of truck. Oil separatе with those of the insur- action which was consolidated Court, Cook, J., George granted R. ers. The Kent Circuit Security. plaintiffs summary judgments in favor of United appealed appeals consolidated. Held: and the were the mainte- A connection existed between 1. sufficient causal caused the fire such that nance of thе truck and the may arose out of the maintenance it be said that the meaning the no-fault automobile insurance stat- within the mechanic, dealership alleged negligence of the and its ute. The cause, independent may not as an does while it be viewed connection. defeat the otherwise established cаusal apply garage keepers’ liability act where it 2. The does clearly out of the mainte- can be said that the arose presumption negligence on the nance of a motor vehicle. The garage keeper imposed by part which is meaning system. keepers’ liability That act has no in a no-fault in Headnotes References for Points (Rev), [1, Insurance 194. 7 Am Jur 2d Automobile § 2] plans. Validity and construction of "no-fault” automobile insurance ALR3d 229. injuries or "aris- Automobile insurance: what are accidents maintenance, ing ALR2d 150. ownership, or use” of insured vehicles. out of (Rev), [3, 223. Am Jur 2d Automobile Insurance § 74] Buckeye Union Ins v Johnson therefore, supersede cannot cases where applies. the no-fault act Reversed and remanded. Burns, J., R. B. dissented. He would hold in a bailment- *2 governs, situation the for-hire bailment the vehicle not the Thus, keepers’ garage maintenance the vehicle. act, applies. not the no-fault and He would affirm.
Opinion — — — 1. Insurance Automobilеs No-Fault Insurance Statutes. "arising The term out of’ the maintenance aof motor vehicle as require used in the no-fault automobile insurance act does not showing strict of causation of as does concept proximate cause; relationship between the damage must, however, and maintenance be more than (MCL incidental, fortuitous, 500.3121[1]; or "but for” MSA 24.13121[1]). — — — 2. Insurance Automobiles No-Fault Insurance Statutes. A causal between sufficient connection the maintenance of a damages "arising vehicle out of’ that maintenance is injury foreseeably if established identifiable with the and, normal of a motor maintenance vehicle if maintenance of causes, the motor vechile is one of the a sufficient causal other, independent connection exists even if there are causes (MCL500.3121[1]; 24.13121[1]). MSA Garage — — 3. Automobiles Maintenance of Motor Vehicles Liability Keepers’ —Act Statutes. garage keepers’ liability act should not be to defеat used causal connection between the a motor maintenance of vehicle (MCL clearly which arises out of that maintenance seq.; seq.). et 256.541 MSA et 9.1721 Burns, R. B. Dissent J. — —
4. Automobiles Maintenance Motor Vehicles Bailments — Statutes. vehicle, The bailment of a and not vehicle, governs damages whenever result from maintenance situation; work on vehicle in a bailment-for-hire keepers’ liability case, act therefore controls such a not the no- (MCL seq., fault automobile insurance 256.541 et 500.8121[1]; seq., 24.13121[1]). MSA 9.1721 et (by Phillip & Baxter Hammond J. Nelson and 108 Mich op Alt, Jr.), Insurance Robert N. Union Buckeye Company. R.
Smith, Roegge (by Rice & Lance Haughey, Mather), Hartford Company, for Homе Insurance States Insurance Insurance American Company, Company, Citizens Mutual Insurance Company, and Frank- Company, Fremont Mutual Insurance Company. enmuth Mutual Insurance Worsfold, P.C. Dale M. Strain & Linsey, (by Strain), Security Company. for United Insurance Maher, P.J., R. M. and R. B. Burns and
Before: Walsh, D. F. JJ. Maher, M.
R. P.J. Plaintiffs these consoli- appeal dated cases the order of the trial court *3 granting in favor of defendant summary judgment Security Company. United Insurance 27, 1974, connecting On November the fuel line the main fuel tanks on a auxiliary and truck belonging Morgan to Olen was cut an unknown dealer, person. Morgan took the truck to a Ford Johnson, doing Kenneth who was business as Sparta, Johnson Ford in Michigan. Repairs were completed Morgan picked up and the truck. Fuel tanks, was not properly flowing between the two however, Morgan so returned the truck to the 3, dealer for repairs further on December or 1974. A mechanic got under the truck with a in light trouble order to check on He problem. line, planned directing to disсonnect the fuel fuel into a bucket. squirted the fuel Unfortunately past bulb, light causing bucket and hit the fuel to explode ignite ultimately and a fire that caused several hundred thousand dollars worth damages. Buckeye Union Ins v Johnson insurance companies paid
Plaintiffs are who damages resulting for from the claims fire. Most of buildings the claims were for to nearby contents, although their and two of the claims were for to motor at vehicles the dealer- suit, ship. insureds, brought subrogees Plaintiffs as their against negli- the dealership alleging gence of its part employees, addition- sued ally defendant United Security Insurance truck, Company, Morgan’s insurer of alleging that rеsulting losses from the fire Morgan’s were covered under In policy with United. plaintiffs seeking recover, each case the were to subrogees insureds, as amounts individual paid had in they claims. for brought
United
motion
summary judgment
on the basis that
it was not
as
liable
a matter of
granted
plaintiffs
was
law.
appealed.
motion
have
3121(1) оf
Section
the no-fault automobile insur-
part
as
provides
ance
follows:
property protection
"Under
insurance an
insurer
to pay
tangible
liable
benefits
accidental
property arising
operation,
out
ownership,
main-
or
tenance
use
a motor vehicle
a motor
vehicle
* *
24.13121(1).
500.3121(1);
MCL
MSA
In the instant
case it
is not disputed that
damage was
tangible
or that
it was
Instead,
accidental.
the issue is whether
the dam-
age arose out of the maintenance
of a motor
vehicle as a motor vehicle. Clearly, Morgan’s truck
was being maintained
at the time of the accident.
It
is difficult
to imagine
a clearer
example
of motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.
*4
Work was being undertaken
to correct
problem
tanks,
the fuel line between two fuel
work that
was clearly related to the truck’s characteristics
a motor vehicle. Cf. Kudek v Detroit Automobile
Inter-Ins Exchange,
635,
100 Mich
637;
App
300
App
46
Mich
50
108
op
Co, 92
Ins
Auto-Owners
v
Miller
(1980),
NW2d 350
408
gtd
lv
(1979),
525
263; 284 NW2d
Mich App
sugges
(1980).*
to dеfendant’s
Contrary
Mich 897
the
requires
tion,
way
in no
the statute
policy
the
by
personally
done
be
however,
clear,
Kudek,
is also
supra.
It
holder. Cf.
must exist between
nexus
causal
that a sufficient
may
it
such that
the
the maintenance
maintenance.
out of
the
damage arose
be said the
the accident
argues
In
defendаnt
regard
maintenance,
out of
but
the
out of
did not arise
its
dealer and
negligence
intervening
inter-
While
point.
This misses
mechanic.
be sufficient
party may
of one
vening negligence
negligence was
party’s
another
a claim that
defeat
in a fault-based
an accident
cause of
proximate
require
not
out оf’ does
"arising
the term
system,
the con-
as does
causation
showing of
as strict a
v
Shinabarger
Citizens
cause.
cept
proximate
307, 313-314; 282
Co,
App
Mich
Mutual
Ins
90
(1979),
895
lv den
(1979),
407 Mich
301
NW2d
Co, 64 Mich
Casualty
Surety
&
Kangas v Aetna
(1975), lv den 395
Mich
1,
42
17; 235 NW2d
App
(1975).
mainte
relationship
between
however,
must,
be more
nance and
Detroit
incidental,
fortuitous,
but
for.
or
than
Exchangе
Higginbotham,
v
Inter-Ins
Automobile
(1980), lv
213,
222; 290 NW2d
95 Mich
Rangas, supra,
(1980),
17. It is
den
Based these we hold that suffi- cient causal connection existed in the instant case Morgan’s between the maintenance of truck and which resulted. The arose directly being Morgan’s out the work done on alleged negligence While the truck. of the dealer- might ship its mechanic be seen as an inde- pendent cause, this does defeat the otherwise Accordingly, estаblished causal connection. under act, the no-fault United would be liable for the policy Morgan. based on its with argues, however, United also displace act was not intended to well-established principles concerning liability garage keep- support position ers. In this Court’s Liberty recent decision in Mutual Ins Co v Allied Equipment App Co, 33; Truck 103 Mich 302 NW2d (1981), strikingly where the facts were similar Liberty to those in the instant case. In Mutual Sterling brought K. Gerald Truck an his truck to the Allied Equipment Company for the installation of auxiliary fuel tank. tank The was installed but properly, Sterling did not function so returned the Repairs Sterling truck to Allied. were made but complaining returned the truck a second time problem still had not been This time resolved. manager the service crawled under the truck to auxiliary examine the tank’s fuel line. While working dripped truck, underneath the fuel from splashed line, floor, hit the on the bulb light. ignited, resulting a trouble The fuel in fire building destroyed which Allied’s and several repairs. trucks which had been with left Allied for 108 Mich op brought suit trucks damaged Insurers Com- Casualty Surety & and Aetna Allied against truck, Sterling’s seek- insurer of no-fault pany, their paid to they had money ing recover summary granted partial court insureds. trial ga- Aetna, holding favor judgment seq.; MCL 256.541 et rage keepers’ *6 the seq., et and not no-fault controlled MSA 9.1721 garage the the trial court held Accordingly, act. Allied, plaintiff insurance liable to the keeper, companies. garage the both examined appeal,
On property protection the keepers’ act and liability that and concluded of the no-fault act provisions of the maintenance did not arise out damage the hire. vehicle, of a bailment but out of motor continued: The Court the argument may be made that strong
"While the the vehicle accident arose out of act, meaning we of the no-fault insurance within the that, to hold whenever a bailment-for- feel constrained the presented, is it is the bailment of hire situation that of the vehicle vehiclе and the maintenance unnecessarily governs. To hold otherwise would eviscer- garage keepers’ liability act and would extend ate the coverage beyond no-fault insurance Legislature what we believe garage keepers’ liability intended. in- protects property damages a vehicle owner frоm custody flicted in the of a on vehicle while care and act, applicable if bailee for hire. The no-fault insurance situation, presumption to a bailment render that would meaningless. garage in the We keepers’ liability act Legislature to cannot find that intended alter drastically it so when common law bailments for hire Mutual, Liberty act.” enacted the no-fault insurance supra, 40-41.
After do not believe that analysis, careful we Buckeye Union Ins v Johnson Opinion op the Court gargage keepers’ liability act should control disposition garage keepers’ of the instant case. The piece legislation act is a short which uр presumptions concerning damage sets certain garage keeper. to automobiles left with a ally, Gener- applicable case, and as to the instant the act proof provides to an in automobile possession, custody, garage care, or control of a keeper prima facie evidence negligence garage keeper. was due to the Accordingly, perceive we do not how that act apply would to the bulk of the claims property case, instant which involve to legal garage. with no connection to the The act is clearly designed protect the owners of vеhicles garage keeper. who entrust their vehicles to a expression legislative There is no intent the act also be used in some manner to determine buildings the interests of owners of or other forms with no connection to the other geographic proximity. than The no-fault applies hand, the other forms of clearly is not so limited and all *7 tangible property. Accordingly, where it damage can be said that the arose out of garage the maintenance of a motor vehicle the keepers’ liability act not should be used to artifi- cially connection, defeat this causal at least as to property owners of оther than motor vehicles garage keeper. which were entrusted to the This does not end matters since at least two of damage the claims in the instant case vehicles entrusted to the to concern dealership and since Liberty holding Mutual could be read as that the apply any no-fault act does not to to sort property which results from an accident such as regard respect- that in the instant In case. we fully suggest Liberty wrongly Mutual was garage keepers’ princi- liability decided. The act is Mich Opinion of the Court up presumptions designed pally negligence certain to set theory applicable to fault-based hаnd, recovery. is on the other no-fault system replace designed clearly to a fault-based sufficient causal with a claims motor vehicle. of a to connection the established, connection, controls once That causal despite independent other, causes. the existence keepers’ garage supra. Shinabarger, While negli- up presumption liability act would set (at dealership part gence as to least vehicles of motor on behalf of owners claims presumption dealership), to the entrusted meaningless Accordingly, system. in a no-fault logically super- keepers’ liability act cannot the no-fault act in cases where sede applies. obviously Liberty was con- in Mutual The Court holding in as ours the instant that a such cerned garage keepers’ destroy effectively case would necessarily In tbe case. act. This is connection between the where the causal cases ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle vehicle and to a motor entrusted to a garage keeper is insufficient parties operation of no-fault act the invoke the system of will be cast back into a fault-based ga- presumptions up recovery in and the set rage keepers’ liability in full force. In act will be established, cases where the causal connection is Legisla- only however, we can conclude (which was enacted ture intended the no-fault act act) garage keepers’ liability well after apply notwithstanding concepts fault-based such garage keepers’ liability in the those involvеd act. summary judg- granting The trial court erred *8 Security Insur- ment in favor defendant United Buckeye Union Ins v Johnson R. B. Burns, J. Dissent anee Company. This cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings plaintiffs’ com- plaints consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded. Walsh, J.,
D. F.
concurred.
Burns,
R. B.
J. (dissenting). I
dissent
respectfully
for the reasons set forth in Liberty Mutual Ins Co
v Allied
Co,
Truck Equipment