Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #265521; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, Hoekstra, and Wilder; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Compulsory Insurance Requirements for Owners or Registrants of Motor Vehicles Required to Be Registered [3101(1)]
Exception for Unreasonably Parked Vehicles [3106(1)(a)]
Vehicles and Trailers, Including Motorcycles [3123(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Motor Vehicle Code (Registration and Title Requirements)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition for defendant, finding that even though defendant’s trailer weighed less than 2,500 pounds, it was a motor vehicle required to be insured under MCL 500.3101(1).
The plaintiffs’ insured in this case hit a trailer parked on the side of a dirt road. After plaintiff paid its insured property protection benefits and personal injury protection benefits, it brought an action for reimbursement against defendant, the trailer’s owner. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition, finding that because the trailer weighed less than 2,500 pounds, it did not need to be registered and, therefore, did not need to be insured. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that even though the owner of a trailer which weighs less than 2,500 pounds does not need to obtain a certificate of title under MCL 257.216, the trailer still needed to be registered. Therefore, because the trailer needed to be registered, it was a motor vehicle required to be insured under MCL 500.3101(1). In this regard, the court stated:
“We hold that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the applicable statutes. MCL 257.216 states ‘Every motor vehicle, pickup camper, trailer coach, trailer, semitrailer, and pole trailer, when driven or moved upon a highway, is subject to the registration and certificate of title provisions of this act. . . .’”
In the list of exceptions to the general rule, the statute states that a ‘certificate of title need not be obtained for a trailer, semitrailer, or pole trailer weighing less than 2,500 pounds. The registration and certificate of title requirements are clearly not interchangeable. Although MCL 257.216(g) exempts trailers weighing less than 2,500 pounds from the certificate of title provision, there is no similar exemption from the registration requirement. Therefore, Burns’ trailer was subject to the MCL 257.216 registration requirement, and it had to be insured under MCL 500.3101(1). Thus, we conclude that Progressive’s complaint stated a claim for reimbursement under the no-fault act.”
(emphasis in original)
Next, the court determined there was a question of fact whether the parked vehicle exception under MCL 500.3106(1)(a) and 500.3123 applied. Defendant claimed he had parked the trailer off the side of the road, but the police report shows that one side of the trailer was parked on the road. However, the police report does not show whether the trailer was on the shoulder of the road or on the traveled portion of the road. Therefore, the court remanded the matter for further proceedings. In this regard, the court stated:
“An accidental bodily injury does not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a parked vehicle unless the ‘vehicle was parked in such a way as to cause unreasonable risk of the bodily injury which occurred.’ Similarly, a property protection exclusion applies unless a vehicle ‘is parked in a manner as not to cause unreasonable risk of damage that occurred. When no dispute exists regarding the underlying facts, ‘the determination of whether an automobile is parked in such a way as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily injury within the meaning of §3106(1)(a) is an issue of statutory construction for the court.
The police report prepared for the accident consists of a diagram of the accident scene. The officer’s drawing shows the trailer parked with its right-side off the roadway. It appears, however, that the left side of the trailer was on the roadway and that Colman, while traveling fully on the road, clipped its rear left corner. But, it may be that the police report also depicts the right-hand shoulder of the roadway rather than just the portion intended for actual vehicle travel. Hence, a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the trailer was parked in such a way as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily injury or property damage. Accordingly, neither Progressive nor Burns was entitled to summary disposition, and the matter must be remanded to allow a trier of fact to determine whether the trailer was parked in an unreasonable manner.”
