Buckeye Union Ins. Co. v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 27 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | 49891,Docket Nos. 48721 |
| Citation | 310 N.W.2d 268,108 Mich.App. 46 |
| Parties | BUCKEYE UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Subrogee of Donald E. Worm, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. Kenneth E. JOHNSON, d/b/a Johnson Ford, Defendant, and United Security Insurance Company, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. The HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Hartford Insurance Company, American States Insurance Company, Citizens Mutual Insurance Company, Fremont Mutual Insurance Company, and Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Murphy Oil Corporation, Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth E. JOHNSON d/b/a Johnson Ford and United Security Insurance Company, a corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Phillip J. Nelson, Grand Rapids, for plaintiff-appellant in No. 48721.
Richard D. Ward, Grand Rapids, for defendant in No. 48721 and defendants-appellees in No. 49891.
Dale M. Strain, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellee in both cases.
Lance R. Mather, Grand Rapids, for plaintiffs-appellants in No. 49891.
Joseph R. Gillard, III, Grand Rapids, for third party plaintiff-appellee in No. 49891.
Before MAHER, P. J., and R. B. BURNS and WALSH, JJ.
Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases appeal the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant United Security Insurance Company.
On November 27, 1974, the fuel line connecting the main and auxiliary fuel tanks on a truck belonging to Olen Morgan was cut by an unknown person. Morgan took the truck to a Ford dealer, Kenneth Johnson, who was doing business as Johnson Ford in Sparta, Michigan. Repairs were completed and Morgan picked up the truck. Fuel was not properly flowing between the two tanks, however, so Morgan returned the truck to the dealer for further repairs on December 2 or 3, 1974. A mechanic got under the truck with a trouble light in order to check on the problem. He planned to disconnect the fuel line, directing the fuel into a bucket. Unfortunately the fuel squirted past the bucket and hit the light bulb, causing the fuel to explode and ignite a fire that ultimately caused several hundred thousand dollars worth of damages.
Plaintiffs are insurance companies who paid claims for damage resulting from the fire. Most of the claims were for damage to nearby buildings and their contents, although two of the claims were for damage to motor vehicles at the dealership. Plaintiffs brought suit, as subrogees of their insureds, against the dealership alleging negligence on the part of its employees, and additionally sued defendant United Security Insurance Company, the no-fault insurer of Morgan's truck, alleging that the losses resulting from the fire were covered under Morgan's policy with United. In each case the plaintiffs were seeking to recover, as subrogees of the individual insureds, the amounts they had paid in claims.
United brought a motion for summary judgment on the basis that it was not liable as a matter of law. The motion was granted and plaintiffs have appealed.
Section 3121(1) of the no-fault automobile insurance act provides in part as follows:
"Under property protection insurance an insurer is liable to pay benefits for accidental damage to tangible property arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle * * * ". M.C.L. § 500.3121(1); M.S.A. § 24.13121(1).
In the instant case it is not disputed that the damage was to tangible property or that it was accidental. Instead, the issue is whether the damage 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 maintenance of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. Work was being undertaken to correct a problem in the fuel line between two fuel tanks, work that was clearly related to the truck's characteristics as a motor vehicle. Cf. Kudek v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins. Exchange, 100 Mich.App. 635, 637, 300 N.W.2d 350 (1980); Miller v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 92 Mich.App. 263, 284 N.W.2d 525 (1979), lv. gtd. 408 Mich. 897 (1980). Contrary to defendant's suggestion, the statute in no way requires that the maintenance be done personally by the policy holder. Cf. Kudek, supra. It is also clear, however, that a sufficient causal nexus must exist between the maintenance and the damage such that it may be said the damage arose out of the maintenance. In this regard defendant argues that the accident did not arise out of the maintenance, but out of the intervening negligence of the dealer and its mechanic. This misses the point. While the intervening negligence of one party may be sufficient to defeat a claim that another party's negligence was the proximate cause of an accident in a fault based system, the term "arising out of" does not require as strict a showing of causation as does the concept of proximate cause. Shinabarger v. Citizens Mutual Ins. Co., 90 Mich.App. 307, 313-314, 282 N.W.2d 301 (1979), lv. den. 407 Mich. 895 (1979); Kangas v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 64 Mich.App. 1, 17, 235 N.W.2d 42 (1975), lv. den. 395 Mich. 787 (1975). The relationship between the maintenance and the damage must, however, be more than incidental, fortuitous, or but for. Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins. Exchange v. Higginbotham, 95 Mich.App. 213, 222, 290 N.W.2d 414 (1980), lv. den. 409 Mich. 919 (1980); Kangas, supra, 64 Mich.App. 17, 235 N.W.2d 42. It is not sufficient that the motor vehicle is merely the site of the accident. Shinabarger, supra, 90 Mich.App. 314, 282 N.W.2d 301. A sufficient causal connection is established, however, if the injury is foreseeably identifiable with the normal maintenance of a motor vehicle. Higginbotham, supra, 95 Mich.App. 222, 290 N.W.2d 414; Kangas, supra, 64 Mich.App. 17, 235 N.W.2d 42. If maintenance of a motor vehicle is one of the causes, a sufficient causal connection exists even though there are independent causes. Shinabarger, supra, 90 Mich.App. 313, 282 N.W.2d 301.
Based on these principles, we hold that a sufficient causal connection existed in the instant case between the maintenance of Morgan's truck and the damage which resulted. The damage arose directly out of the work being done on Morgan's truck. While the alleged negligence of the dealership and its mechanic might be seen as an independent cause, this does not defeat the otherwise established causal connection. Accordingly, under the no-fault act, United would be liable for the damage based on its policy with Morgan.
United also argues, however, that the no-fault act was not intended to displace well established principles concerning the liability of garage keepers. In support of this position is this Court's recent decision in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Allied Truck Equipment Co., 103 Mich.App. 33, 302 N.W.2d 588 (1981), where the facts were strikingly similar to those in the instant case. In Liberty Mutual Gerald K. Sterling brought his truck to the Allied Truck Equipment Company for the installation of an auxiliary fuel tank. The tank was installed but did not function properly, so Sterling returned the truck to Allied. Repairs were made but Sterling returned the truck a second time complaining that the problem still had not been resolved. This time the service manager crawled under the truck to examine the auxiliary tank's fuel line. While working underneath the truck, fuel dripped from the line, hit the floor, and splashed on the bulb of a trouble light. The fuel ignited, resulting in a fire which destroyed Allied's building and several trucks which had been left with Allied for repairs.
Insurers of the damaged trucks brought suit against Allied and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, the no-fault insurer of Sterling's truck, seeking to recover the money they had paid to their insureds. The trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Ins. v. U-Haul of Michigan, Inc.
...no-fault insurance. Contrarily, defendants supplied this documentation in a supplemental brief. 8. See also Buckeye Union Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 108 Mich.App. 46, 310 N.W.2d 268 (1981), which held that the no-fault act took precedence over the garage keepers' liability act, M.C.L. § 256.541 e......
-
Wagner v. Michigan Mut. Liability Ins. Co., Docket No. 66094
...in their views of the application of the no-fault act to accidents occurring in repair facilities. Compare Buckeye Union Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 108 Mich.App. 46; 310 N.W.2d 268 (1981), with Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Allied Truck Equipment Co., 103 Mich.App. 33; 302 N.W.2d 588 (1981). This di......
-
Michigan Mut. Ins. Co. v. CNA Ins. Companies
...relationship between "maintenance" and "damage" must be more than "incidental, fortuitous, or but for." Buckeye Union Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 108 Mich.App. 46, 50, 310 N.W.2d 268 (1981), lv. den. 414 Mich. 873 (1982). A sufficient causal connection is established if the injury is foreseeably i......
-
DGI v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. of Mich.
... ... as does the concept of proximate cause." Buckeye" ... Union Ins Co v Johnson, 108 Mich.App. 46, 50; 310 N.W.2d ... 268 (1981) ... \xC2" ... ...