Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Murphy v. Dairyland Insurance
Citations: 339 N.W.2d 628; 417 Mich. 602Docket: 67492, (Calendar No. 1)
Court: Michigan Supreme Court; November 7, 1983; Michigan; State Supreme Court
In the case of Murphy v. Dairyland Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of Michigan addressed the issue of whether property protection insurance covers damages to a motorcycle involved in a collision with a motor vehicle under the Michigan no-fault act. The plaintiff, a motorcyclist injured in a July 3, 1979, accident, sought insurance benefits for repairs to his motorcycle from Dairyland. Although the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, determining that Dairyland was not liable for the motorcycle's damage. The Supreme Court reviewed the relevant statutes, specifically MCL 500.3101(2), which defines "motor vehicle" and excludes motorcycles, and MCL 500.3123(1)(a), which pertains to property damage coverage. The court concluded that while "motor vehicle" and "vehicle" are used interchangeably in some contexts, the term "vehicle" in MCL 500.3123(1)(a) is distinctly defined to encompass a broader category, thereby including motorcycles. The court's reasoning was reinforced by its prior decision in Pioneer State Mutual Ins Co v. Allstate Ins Co, where it was established that this broader definition was intentional to include various vehicles beyond just motor vehicles. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, holding that property protection insurance benefits do not extend to motorcycles involved in accidents on public highways, as they are classified as vehicles operated by power other than muscular power. Plaintiff was awarded $1,907.63 plus interest and costs; however, the specific subsection of GCR 1963, 117, used to grant this motion is not identified in the court's review. The court noted the practice of not citing appropriate authority has led to proposed rules MCR 2.116(C) and 2.119(A)(1)(b). The plaintiff previously settled a claim for personal protection insurance benefits, with an order for discontinuance entered on November 17, 1980. The definition of "motor vehicle" in MCL 500.3101(2) was amended post-collision to clarify exclusions, specifically excluding motorcycles and mopeds. Additionally, MCL 500.3123(1)(a) explicitly states that vehicles and their contents are excluded from property protection insurance benefits. Lastly, MCL 500.3121(1) describes the insurer's liability for accidental damage to tangible property arising from the use of a motor vehicle in accordance with specified provisions.