*1 123 Mich v CARSON CITY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY MICHIGAN TEXACO,INC 3, 1982, November at Detroit. Decided Docket No. 60462. Submitted February appeal applied 1983. Leave to for. Texaco, Inc., City was delivered truck owned Carson A tanker Inc., Company, Service and mainte- to Tank Truck work, gasoline During of that nance work. the course bulb, ignited by light resulting spilled a on the floor and approximately damage to Tank Truck’s Mich- insurer, paid Company, igan Mutual Insurance Tank Truck’s Inc., Texaco, against City damage and filed suit Carson Company, Wayne Farm Insurance and its seeking reimbursement under the no-fault auto- Circuit Court J., court, Stacey, Michael L. mobile insurance act. The ground summary judgment in favor of defendants on the plaintiff upon which relief could be had failed to state a cause rehearing granted. was denied and it now Plaintiffs’ appeals by granted. Held: court erred trial damage arose out of the maintenance work defendants. The Thus, being performed City on Carson Texaco’s truck. a causal under the no-fault act and that act connection established notwithstanding applies, such as those garage keepers’ liability involved in the act. proceedings. Reversed and remanded for further J., affirm the trial dissented. He would keeper’s court’s because he believes that liability should not lessened the existence of a no-fault be insurance carrier. Opinion of the Court 1. of Motor Insurance Maintenance Garage Keepers’ Liability Vehicles Act. garage keepers’ liability act should not be used to defeat [2] [1] 7 Am Jur 7 Am Jur 2d, 2d, References Automobile Insurance Automobile Insurance 137. Points in Headnotes §§ 348, 349, City Mich Mut v Carson Tex causal connection between the maintenance of a motor vehicle clearly maintenance; arises out of that exists, where such a causal connection the no-fault automobile controlling seq., 500.3121[1]; insurance act is seq., 24.13121[1]). *2 by
Dissent Garage 2. Insurance Bailments Keepers’ Liability Act. Liability damages damaged by for to a motor vehicle a ñre while possession garage keeper such vehicle is in the of a purpose repairs governed by should be by act rather than insurance act seq., 256.541 et MSA 9.1721 et seq.). Coticchio, Sullivan, Zotter & P.C. (by Charles G. Skupin), for plaintiff.
Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan (by Robert J. Riley), for defendant. P.J., Before: and V. J. Brennan Bronson,
J. H. JJ. Gillis, Plaintiff, Michigan Mutual Insur- Per Curiam. ance Company, appeals by granted from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment 1963, 117.2(1). defendants under GCR In -April, 1976, a tanker truck owned by defen- dant Carson City Texaco and insured under policy of no-fault defendant Farm Insurance Company was plain- delivered to tiffs subrogor, (hereinaf- Service, Tank Truck Inc. Truck), ter Tank for and maintenance work. While an employee of Tank Truck calibrating was meter, a fuel gasoline spilled onto the floor and ignited by a light bulb. The ensuing fire destroyed much of Tank Truck’s Plain- tiff, Tank Truck’s paid approximately Truck. Plaintiff then to Tank in benefits claiming
brought it was entitled to this action act. The trial under reimbursement summary- defendant’s court plaintiff’s for rehear- motion and denied application granted plaintiff’s ing. This Court delayed appeal. presented appeal question in this is whether provi- under the Farm is liable
defendant State property insurance act sions of no-fault during occurred a fire which caused garage keeper’s maintenance work on of a course alleges Plaintiff that State vehicle. the insured under 3121 of the Farm is liable 24.13121(1), 500.3121(1); pro- vides: protection insurance an insurer property "Under *3 damage tangible to pay for accidental
liable to benefits ownership, operation, main- property arising out of the vehicle as a motor vehicle tenance or use of a motor subject and sections provisions to the of this section 3127.” 3125 and panels the Court have addressed Three this question presented precise here under factual cir- present nearly in the cumstances identical to those Liberty Allied Truck case. In Mutual Ins Co v Equipment App Co, 33; 302 588 103 Mich NW2d (1981) panel , that the of this Court held keepers’ liability act, the no-fault insurance rather than hand, in
act,
Court
controlled.
the other
the
On
App
Buckeye
Johnson, 108 Mich
Union Ins Co v
(1981),
We Union, Mutual v supra, Liberty eye adopted America, supra. Ins Co of North being arose out of the maintenance work this case truck. Since a causal on the insured’s performed established under the no-fault connection was in- Legislature conclude that only "we can * * * apply act notwith- tended as in- such those standing act”. Buck- liability in the volved Union, Moreover, supra, note that eye we Union is consistent Buckeye rationale set forth act principle with the in nature and should be con- broadly is remedial coverage. to effect strued judg- in granting summary
The trial court erred ment to defendants. proceedings further
Reversed and remanded for opin- consistent with this plaintiffs complaint on ion. (dissenting). I respectfully set forth in agree reasoning
dissent as I
with the
Equipment
Mutual Ins Co v Allied Truck
Liberty
(1981).
Co,
App 33;