The No-Fault Act; Tort liability; MCL 500.3135(3); Intentional-harm exception; MCL 500.3135(3)(a); Property protection insurance benefits; MCL 500.3121; One-year limitations period; MCL 500.3145(5); Trespass; Three-year limitations period; MCL 600.5805; MCL 600.5827; Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) or (8)

The court held that the trial court erred by granting defendant summary disposition because plaintiff’s complaint adequately pled facts bringing his trespass claim within the No-Fault Act’s intentional-harm exception. Plaintiff sued for trespass and negligence after defendant’s repair crew allegedly drove across his property and damaged trees while accessing a transformer on neighboring property. Defendant argued the claims were governed by the No-Fault Act’s one-year limitations period because they arose from the use of a motor vehicle, and the trial court granted summary disposition after finding plaintiff had not shown the crew intended to damage the trees. On appeal, the court held that the dispositive question was whether the intentional-damage exception applied. It reasoned that under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (8), the trial court had to accept plaintiff’s factual allegations as true unless documentary evidence contradicted them. Plaintiff alleged the crew “intentionally drove their trucks directly over Plaintiff’s trees . . . to create a new access path to the pole,” and defendant offered no contrary documentary evidence. The court concluded the trial court improperly shifted the burden to plaintiff because, at that stage, plaintiff “was not required to prove the allegation[.]” Reversed and remanded.