Hanson Cold Storage Co. v. Chizek Elevator & Transp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 September 2016
• Docket Number: No. 1:15-cv-869,1:15-cv-869
• Citation: Hanson Cold Storage Co. v. Chizek Elevator & Transp., Inc., 205 F.Supp.3d 920 (W.D. Mich. 2016)
• Parties: HANSON COLD STORAGE CO., Plaintiff, v. CHIZEK ELEVATOR & TRANSPORT, INC. and Jason Scott Turley, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

205 F.Supp.3d 920

HANSON COLD STORAGE CO., Plaintiff,

v.CHIZEK ELEVATOR & TRANSPORT, INC. and Jason Scott Turley, Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-869

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed September 7, 2016

Patrick D. Murphy, Boveri Murphy Rice & Ladue LLP, South Bend, IN, for Plaintiff.

Dirk H. Beckwith, Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC, Farmington Hills, MI, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Paul L. Maloney, United States District Judge

Defendant Chizek Elevator & Transport's tractor-trailer rolled into Plaintiff Hanson Cold Storage's warehouse, causing damage. At the time of the accident, no one was in the cab of the tractor-trailer. Plaintiff Hanson Cold Storage sued Chizek Transport and Defendant Jason Turley, the individual who parked the vehicle. Plaintiff filed a first-amended complaint. (ECF No. 8 "Complaint.") Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 15) and Defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 16). The Court has reviewed the pleadings, the briefs, and the applicable law. The matter will be decided without a hearing. See W.D. Mich LCivR 7.2(d).

The parties disagree about whether the lawsuit arises under Michigan's no-fault insurance act. Because the accident and resulting property damage arose from the tractor-trailer's use as a motor vehicle, Michigan's no-fault act governs the dispute, and the one-year limitations period applies. Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED because the lawsuit was untimely filed.

I. Standard of Review

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing how the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This statement is intended to "give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but it must include more than recitations of the elements of a cause of action. Id. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A plaintiff must allege facts that "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," and that are sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

An action may be dismissed if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss requires the Court to " ‘construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.’ " Jones v. City of Cincinnati , 521 F.3d 555, 559 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471,476 (6th Cir.2007) ). A defendant bringing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether a cognizable claim has been pled in the complaint. Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434,436 (6th Cir.1988). Although the court considers the well-pled factual allegations in the complaint, a motion to dismiss turns exclusively on questions of law. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 n. 8, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) ; see also Ashcroft , 556 U.S. at 674–75, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ("Evaluating the sufficiency of the complaint is not a ‘fact-based’ question of law, ....").

When the allegations in "in the complaint affirmatively show that the claim is time-barred" dismissal of the claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate. Cataldo v. United States Steel Corp. , 676 F.3d 542, 547 (6th Cir.2012).

II. Applicable Law

This lawsuit requires the Court to apply Michigan law. This Court has jurisdiction over this case on the basis of diversity of citizenship between the parties. "In federal cases based on diversity jurisdiction, the court must apply state law as dictated by applicable state's highest court and legislature." Erie R.R. v. Tompkins , 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). When the highest court has not yet ruled on a matter, the court looks to "all available data" to determine state law, including the state appellate courts, potentially relevant dicta from the state supreme court, restatements of law, commentaries, and the majority rule among other states. Angelotta v. American Broad. Corp., 820 F.2d 806, 807 (6th Cir.1987). As the parties are diverse and Plaintiff has pled the required amount in controversy, see 8 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the Court applies Michigan law for the purposes of this case as the events giving rise to this action occurred in Oceana County, Michigan.

III. Discussion

The parties do not dispute the material facts underlying this lawsuit. The incident occurred on August 20, 2014. Jason Turley, an agent of Chizek Transport, parked the semi-truck and attached trailer across the street from the Hanson Cold Storage warehouse. The tractor-trailer was parked on a downhill grade. Turley forgot to set the brakes on the trailer and did not place wheel chocks under the tires of either the semi-truck or the attached trailer. The semi-truck and attached trailer rolled from a parked position on a downhill grade, crossed the road, jumped a curb, went through a fence, and collided with the side of Plaintiff's warehouse. When the accident occurred, no one was inside the vehicle driving, braking, steering, controlling, or otherwise operating the truck.

Plaintiff sued Chizek Transport and Jason Turley. Plaintiff alleges Defendants had a duty to secure and park the truck in a safe and reasonable manner. Plaintiff asserts Defendants breached that duty. Plaintiff asserts further that the proximate cause of the damage to its warehouse was Defendants' negligence. Plaintiff insists that Defendants can be held liable because Michigan's no-fault insurance statute does not apply to this accident. The gist of Plaintiff's argument is that the tractor-trailer was not being used as a motor vehicle when the accident occurred. In their motion, Defendants argue that the no-fault act governs the cause of action. Whether a motor vehicle is being used as a motor vehicle, for the purposes of the no-fault act, is a question of law and not a question of fact. See Putkamer v. Transamerica Ins. Corp. of America, 454 Mich. 626, 563 N.W.2d 683, 685 (1997) ; Krueger v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. and Home Ins. Co., 112 Mich.App. 511, 316 N.W.2d 474, 476 (1982).

A. Intersection of Michigan's Owner's Liability Act and Michigan's No-Fault Insurance Act

Plaintiff seeks compensation for property damage. Through the owner's liability statute, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 257.401, et seq. , Michigan allows a cause of action against the owner of a motor vehicle for injuries arising from the negligent operation of the vehicle by authorized users. DeHart v. Joe Lunghamer Chevrolet, Inc., 239 Mich.App. 181, 607 N.W.2d 417, 419 (1999) ; Travelers Ins. v. U – Haul of Michigan, Inc., 235 Mich.App. 273, 597 N.W.2d 235, 237 (1999). The no-fault insurance statute, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 500.3101, et seq. , however, abrogates owner liability when certain conditions are met. "The tort liability abolished by the no-fault act is only such liability as arises out of the defendant's ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, not liability which arises out of other conduct [.]" Citizens Ins. Co. of America v. Tuttle, 411 Mich. 536, 309 N.W.2d 174, 176 (1981) (owner of a cow was liable to the insurer of a truck for damages to the truck which occurred when the truck swerved to avoid a cow running loose on the road; the no-fault act did not abrogate liability for negligent keeping of cattle). When owner liability is abrogated, the cause of action lies against the insurer of the vehicle, not the owner. Travelers Ins., 597 N.W.2d at 240.

B. Causation Under the No-Fault Act—Transportational Function

The no-fault statute outlines when the insurer of a motor vehicle may be held liable for property damage. "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 subject to the provisions of this section and sections 3123, 3125, and 3127."¹ Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3121(1). The Michigan Supreme Court referred to this passage as a "threshold requirement." Turner v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 528 N.W.2d 681, 687 (Mich.1995). For a claimant to be entitled to insurance benefits from the insurer of the owner of a motor vehicle, the injury must result from the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. McKenzie v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 458 Mich. 214, 580 N.W.2d 424,426 (1998) ; Turner, 528 N.W.2d at 685 ; Thor n ton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 425 Mich. 643, 391 N.W.2d 320, 327 (1986).

The Turner opinion addressed issues arising from an accident involving multiple vehicles. The driver of a stolen car crashed into two different trucks, both of which were being driven at the time of the accident. One of the two trucks split in half and the rear portion of the truck hit a building. The gas tank in the rear portion of the truck exploded and the building caught fire. The owners and insurers of the building sought property protection benefits from the insurers of the owners of the stolen vehicle and the insurers of the owners of both trucks. In its opinion, the court discussed the phrase "use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle."

The court found that the damage to the building occurred because of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. Turner , 538 N.W.2d at 685–86. The court found the holding in Thornton v. Allstate Insurance Company , 425 Mich. 643, 391 N.W.2d 320 (1986), a personal injury benefits case, applicable for the causation...