STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 6286

April 22, 1985

MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE:

No-fault insurance--maximum recovery against tort-feasor where accident involved three or more vehicles

In the event that an accident has occurred involving three or more vehicles, recovery against the tort-feasor is not limited to a total of $400.00, but each victim meeting the other requirement of MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135, may recover up to $400.00 for damages to his or her motor vehicle.

The Honorable Ed Fredricks

State Senator

Capitol Building

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion on the following question:

The no-fault motor vehicle insurance act, as originally enacted, abolished all tort liability for damage to property arising from the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle unless it was intentionally caused. MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135.

The consequence of abolishing tort liability for damages to property, which includes motor vehicles, was that owners who failed to carry collision coverage on their motor vehicle or who purchased collision coverage with a high deductible, suffered an uncompensated loss when damage resulted to their motor vehicles through the negligence of others. Compounding this problem was the fact that in the case of many older motor vehicles, the cost of collision insurance coverage was frequently excessive in comparison with the maximum potential recovery for damages to the vehicle.

1979 PA 145 and 1979 PA 147 amended MCL 500.3135(2)(d); MSA 24.13135(2)(d), to create what is frequently referred to as the 'mini-tort' liability for damages of up to $400.00 to motor vehicles.

You point out an ambiguity in the operation of the law where a negligent driver collides with two or more cars. The question arises because of the use of the plural 'motor vehicles' in MCL 500.3135(2)(d); MSA 24.13135(2)(d):

You advise me that an insurer has taken the position that their insured is not liable for more than $400.00 to all motor vehicles involved in the accident rather than $400.00 for each of the motor vehicles.

A plural word may be taken as singular in meaning. Barnes v Michigan A L R Co, 54 Mich 243, 245 (1884). MCL 8.3b; MSA 2.212(2).

The purpose of the amendment was to remedy a perceived defect in the no-fault law which was that collision coverage of vehicles was not compulsory and therefore owners of older vehicles were not insuring the vehicles with collision coverage. The amendment permitted owners of uninsured motor vehicles to recover up to $400.00 and owners of insured vehicles could recover their deductibles. There is no indication that the Legislature intended the owner of a motor vehicle damaged through the negligence of another driver to have a pro-rata recovery dependent upon the number of motor vehicles involved. Instead, the purpose was to assure owners of an opportunity to recover fully the amount of the deductible of their collision coverage and to assure the owners of older motor vehicles that recovery of reasonable damages was possible. As remedial or curative legislation, section 3135(2)(d) should be liberally construed in favor of the persons intended to be benefited. Bierbusse v Farmers Ins Group of Companies, 84 Mich App 34; 269 NW2d 297 (1978).

It is my opinion, therefore, that where an accident has occurred involving three or more vehicles, recovery against the tort-feasor is not limited to a total of $400.00, but each victim meeting the other requirement of MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135, may recover an amount up to $400.00 for damages to his or her motor vehicle.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General