Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.118681 and 120394; Unpublished
Judges Shepherd, Sawyer, and Reilly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motorcycle [§3101(2)(b)]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (ORVs And ATVs) [§3101(2)(g)]
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Motor Vehicle Involvement [§3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Off-Road Recreational Vehicles and All Terrain Vehicles (ORVs and ATVs)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals denied no-fault benefits to a plaintiff who was injured when a motorcycle he was operating collided with a Honda three-wheel all-terrain vehicle (ATV). Neither vehicle involved in the accident was insured. However, plaintiff was insured under a no-fault policy on a motor vehicle in his household. Similarly, the driver of the ATV also had no-fault insurance on an automobile he owned. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny benefits on the basis of Michigan Millers v Farm Bureau (Item No. 997) and held that the ATV fit the statutory definition of motorcycle; and therefore, plaintiff’s injury did not arise out of an accident involving a motor vehicle. The ATV involved in this case was designed to travel on not more than three wheels, was equipped with a motor which exceeded 50 cubic centimeters, had a seat for use of the rider, and was not a moped. The court agreed that an ATV met both the statutory definition of "motorcycle" and "motor vehicle" as set forth in the no-fault statute. However, because it clearly fit the definition of motorcycle and motorcycles are excluded from the no-fault definition of motor vehicle, an ATV should be considered as a motorcycle for purposes of determining whether no-fault benefits are payable. In this regard, the court stated:
"The ATV fit the definition of a motorcycle under the no-fault act. We recognize that the statutory definition of a motor vehicle would also cover ATVs and trail bikes. However, because motorcycles are specifically excluded from the no-fault definition of a motor vehicle, and ATVs and trail bikes fit the definition of motorcycle, we conclude that ATVs and trail bikes should be excluded as well.... If an ATV looks like a motorcycle, acts like a motorcycle, has the same safety hazards as a motorcycle, fits the definition of a motorcycle, and is operated on the highway in the same manner as a motorcycle, we find no error in the trial court's classification of that ATV as a motorcycle. Plaintiff is not entitled to no-fault benefits because his injuries did not arise out of a motor vehicle accident."