Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortplaintiffdefendantjurisdictionliabilityappealtrialsummary judgment
tortplaintiffdefendantliabilitytrialsummary judgment

Related Cases

Jones v. Black, 145 So.3d 402, 2013-1889 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/2/14)
View Case »
Wielgus v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc., 875 F.Supp.2d 854
View Case »
Polish American Machinery Corp. v. R.D. & D. Corp., 760 F.2d 507
View Case »
Forts v. Ward, 566 F.2d 849, 24 Fed.R.Serv.2d 744
View Case »
Weston v. AKHappytime, LLC, 445 P.3d 1015
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Fisher v. Lowe, 122 Mich.App. 418, 333 N.W.2d 67

Facts

Plaintiff commenced this action in tort against defendants Lowe and Moffet for damage to his 'beautiful oak tree' caused when defendant Lowe struck it while operating defendant Moffet's automobile. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1). In addition, the trial court denied plaintiff's request to enter a default judgment against the insurer of the automobile, defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Plaintiff appeals as of right.

Plaintiff commenced this action in tort against defendants Lowe and Moffet for damage to his 'beautiful oak tree' caused when defendant Lowe struck it while operating defendant Moffet's automobile.

Issue

Whether the defendants are liable for the damage to the plaintiff's tree under the no-fault insurance act and whether the trial court erred in denying a default judgment against the insurer.

Whether the defendants are liable for the damage to the plaintiff's tree under the no-fault insurance act and whether the trial court erred in denying a default judgment against the insurer.

Rule

Defendants were immune from tort liability for damage to the tree pursuant to § 3135 of the no-fault insurance act. M.C.L. § 500.3135; M.S.A. § 24.13135.

Defendants were immune from tort liability for damage to the tree pursuant to § 3135 of the no-fault insurance act. M.C.L. § 500.3135; M.S.A. § 24.13135.

Analysis

The court applied the no-fault insurance act to determine that the defendants were immune from liability for the damage caused to the plaintiff's tree. The court also noted that the plaintiff failed to serve process on the insurer, which meant that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over State Farm, thus upholding the trial court's decision.

The court applied the no-fault insurance act to determine that the defendants were immune from liability for the damage caused to the plaintiff's tree.

Conclusion

The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Lowe and Moffet and in refusing to enter a default judgment against State Farm. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Lowe and Moffet and in refusing to enter a default judgment against State Farm.

Who won?

Defendants Lowe and Moffet prevailed in the case because they were granted immunity under the no-fault insurance act, and the court found no jurisdiction over the insurer due to improper service.

Defendants were immune from tort liability for damage to the tree pursuant to § 3135 of the no-fault insurance act.

You must be