e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 84648
Opinion Date : 11/06/2025
e-Journal Date : 11/07/2025
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Fremont Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Practice Area(s) : Insurance
Judge(s) : Ackerman, K.F. Kelly, and Mariani
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

When is a parked car “involved” in an accident; Property protection insurance (PPI) benefits; Turner v Auto Club Ins Ass’n; MCL 500.3121(1); Insurer priority; MCL 500.3125; Personal protection insurance (PIP) case law; Miller v Auto-Owners Ins Co; Heard v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co; Distinguishing “spontaneous combustion cases” & “traffic cases”; Whether the vehicles in those cases were “parked”; Amy v MIC Gen Ins Corp

Summary

Holding that the vehicle at issue “was not ‘involved in the accident’ under MCL 500.3125” and thus, defendant-State Farm was not liable for PPI benefits, the court affirmed summary disposition for State Farm. The issue on appeal was whether a properly parked vehicle (a Ford Escape) “that was struck by a moving car and propelled into a pizzeria was ‘involved in the accident’ for purposes of assigning responsibility for PPI benefits under MCL 500.3125.” The vehicle owner was insured through State Farm. Plaintiffs-insurers “provided property insurance to the building owner and the pizzeria[.]” The court concluded that a line of Michigan Supreme Court cases – Miller, Heard, and Turner – determined the outcome of this case. Under those decisions, “a parked vehicle is generally treated as a stationary object—akin to a tree, signpost, or building—when determining whether it was ‘involved’ in an accident under Michigan’s no-fault statute. While those cases also suggest that a parked vehicle may be considered ‘involved’ if one of the parked vehicle exceptions in MCL 500.3106(1) applies, that provision is specific to PIP claims and does not expressly extend to PPI benefits.” The court added that none of those exceptions applied here in any event. It was unpersuaded by plaintiffs’ arguments based on groups of cases that it referred to as the “spontaneous combustion cases” and the “traffic cases,” finding them distinguishable. Rather, it concluded that “because the Escape was properly parked, unoccupied, not in use as a motor vehicle, and played no active role in the accident, it was not ‘involved’ within the meaning of MCL 500.3125.”

Full PDF Opinion