Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 329779; Unpublished
Judges Talbot, Jansen and Hoekstra; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (ORVs and ATVs) [§3101(2)(g)
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff, who was injured when a “mud bog” struck him, was not entitled to PIP benefits because the mud bog had been modified in such a way that it was not a “motor vehicle” within the meaning of the No-Fault Act.
Plaintiff was injured when he was hit by a mud bog – an off-road vehicle modified to drive through a pit of mud or a mud track. Plaintiff sought PIP benefits for his injuries through defendant Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP). When the benefits were denied, plaintiff filed this lawsuit. MACP moved for summary disposition, which the trial court denied. On appeal, MACP claimed the trial court erred in denying its summary disposition motion because there was no issue regarding the fact that the mud bog was not a motor vehicle, as defined in the No-Fault Act.
The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of summary disposition for MACP, finding the mud bog was not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the No-Fault Act. The Court noted that, under MCL 500.3105(1), “an insurer is liable to pay benefits for accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle ….” The Court explained that a motor vehicle is defined as “a vehicle, including a trailer, that is operated or designed for operation on a public highway by power other than muscular power and has more than 2 wheels.” The Court also quoted the definition of an off-road vehicle, or ORV, which requires that the “vehicle be designed for off-road use and capable of cross-country travel without the benefit of road or trail” but excludes ORV’s that are “registered for use upon a public highway and has” PIP coverage.
The Court of Appeals then examined what types of vehicle modifications can turn a motor vehicle into something that is not a motor vehicle under the No-Fault Act. In particular, the Court cited Apperson v Citizens Mutual Ins Co, 130 Mich App 799 (1983), where plaintiff was injured when a wheel fell off a vehicle during a “street stock” car race and hit him. The Apperson panel outlined the changes to vehicles that convert them into street stock racing cars, and examined whether the vehicle that hit plaintiff was operated or designed for operation on a public highway. The Apperson panel concluded:
“We believe it is entirely logical that a vehicle which was originally designed for use upon public highways can be modified to such a degree that it loses its status as a ‘motor vehicle’ …. This Court held that the ‘street stock’ car that injured the plaintiff was not designed for use on a public highway and did not constitute a motor vehicle.”
The Court of Appeals also looked to Gividen v Bristol West Ins Co, 305 Mich App 639 (2014), where it was held that a modified Jeep did not constitute a motor vehicle under the No-Fault Act. The Court concluded the evidence established that the Jeep had been modified to the extent that it was no longer “designed for operation upon a public highway.”
In light of these two cases, the Court of Appeals examined the modifications made to the mud bog at issue in this case, noting they were as extensive as the changes made to the vehicles in Apperson and Gividen. According to the Court, the evidence established the mud bog did not have basic safety features and that the changes made it dangerous, if not impossible, to drive on a roadway. As a result, the Court said the vehicle was modified to such a degree that it was no longer designed for operation on a public highway and was not a “motor vehicle” as defined by the No-Fault Act.
The Court of Appeals further found that the mud bog fell within the definition of an “off-road vehicle” and was therefore excluded from the definition of motor vehicle in the No-Fault Act. The Court pointed out the mud bog lacked registration for use on a public highway and did not have no-fault insurance, and consequently was not carved out of the definition of an ORV. Thus, the Court concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits for the injuries he sustained in the accident.
