Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 198937; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Kelly, and Whitbeck; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Highway [§3101(2)(b)]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
PIP Insurer’s Right to Reimbursement for Claims Paid Arising Out of Uninsured Vehicle Injuries [§3177(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was inappropriate when there were questions of fact as to whether a collision between two off-road recreational vehicles (ORVs) occurred on a "public highway." Even though the parties stipulated to the facts in this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that "upon our de novo review, we find that genuine issues of material fact abound regarding whether the road at issue constituted a public highway' and that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition."
This case involved a collision between two ORVs on a dirt road that was occasionally maintained by the county road commission. If the accident was deemed to have occurred on a "public highway," then the accident involved two motor vehicles within the meaning of §3101 (2)(e), which defines a motor vehicle as a "vehicle operated or designed for operation upon a public highway." Although the parties stipulated that the ORVs involved in this case were not designed for operation upon a public highway, the ORVs could still be motor vehicles if the accident occurred upon a public highway. In holding that there were many unanswered questions regarding the nature of this roadway, the Court of Appeals noted that there was confusion as to whether the roadway was dedicated, the status of the roadway, the entrances and exits used to access the roadway, and the ownership rights to the roadway. All of these questions must be resolved in order to determine if the roadway in question was a public highway within the meaning of the no-fault statute. Therefore, the case was remanded to adjudicate these facts.
The Court of Appeals also ruled that the trial court did not commit error in refusing to let defendant Allstate file a third-party complaint against the owners of the ORVs seeking reimbursement under §3177 of the no-fault act for no-fault benefits paid by Allstate. The court noted that reimbursement under §3177 is available only as to vehicles that are required to be insured under the no-fault act. The ORVs involved in this accident were not required to be so insured pursuant to MCLA 237.1603 (now MCLA 324.81106). The court stated "under §3113 and §3177, someone who drives a motor vehicle, is involved in an accident, and who had failed to obtain the required no-fault insurance is not entitled to the protections from tort liability that the no-fault act offers, i.e., the no-fault insurer can sue him in a third party action premised on his unlawful operation of a motor vehicle. On the other hand, a person specifically exempted from purchasing no-fault insurance should not be cast into the group of wrongdoers listed in §3113 and suffer this fate. Clearly, that would not be what the Legislature intended." Therefore, because the ORV owners were not required to carry no-fault insurance, they could not be sued for reimbursement under §3177.
