Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 141580 and 142854; Published
Judges Reilly, Sawyer, and Clulo; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Sawyer
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 201 Mich App 555; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motorcycle [§3101(2)(b)]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]
Definition of Owner [§3101(2)(h)]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published Opinion by Judge Sawyer, the Court of Appeals interpreted the provisions of §3113(b) which denied personal protection insurance benefits to the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle or motorcycle which has failed to have in effect required insurance coverage. The motorcycle involved in the accident in this case was uninsured at the time of the accident, and based on the uninsured status of the motorcycle, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs no-fault benefits.
In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that the injured plaintiff was not the owner of the motorcycle at the time of the accident, and therefore, was not disqualified from receiving no-fault benefits.
The court held that the no-fault act under §3101(2)(g) defines the term "owner" as follows:
i. A person renting a motor vehicle or having the use thereof, under a lease or otherwise, for a period that is greater than 30 days.
ii. A person who holds the legal title to a vehicle. . . .
iii. A person who has the immediate right of possession of a motor vehicle under an installment sale contract.
Auto Owners argued that plaintiff Hoadley was an owner of the motorcycle, even though title to the motorcycle was held by his mother, because he had use of the motorcycle for a period greater than 30 days, thus coming within the definition of owner under §3101(2)(g)(i). The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and noted the distinction between the term "motor vehicle" as used in subsections (i) and (iii) of §3101(2)(g) and the term "vehicle" as used in subsection (ii) of §3101(2)(g)(ii). The Court of Appeals held that the terms "vehicle" and "motor vehicle" were not interchangeable. Section 3101(2) also defines the term "motorcycle" as a "vehicle," whereas that same section defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle which has more than two wheels. Under §3101(2)(c), a motor vehicle does not include a motorcycle. Thus, the Court of Appeals held that the Legislature intentionally used the term motor vehicle in two definitions of the term owner, while using the broader term vehicle in the remaining definition of owner, referring to a person who holds legal title to a vehicle. Since the only definition of owner which possibly applies to motorcycles is that definition which uses the term "vehicle" in reference to a person who holds legal title to a vehicle, the court held that in the instant case, since Hoadley did not hold legal title to the vehicle (motorcycle), he was not disqualified from receiving benefits. The Legislature chose to limit the definition of owner where the person has use of the vehicle for more than 30 days to only those circumstances involving "motor vehicles," while elsewhere providing a definition of the word owner which applies to all vehicles. The court rejected Auto Owners' argument that the court should refer to the motor vehicle code in defining the term owner, and that if it did so, Hoadley would come within the definition of an owner of the motorcycle. The court held that it was for the Legislature to determine whether and to what extent to penalize motorcyclists for failure to procure insurance, and that if this "loophole" was unintended by the Legislature, then the Legislature can close that loophole if it deems it advisable. Based upon the above, the Court of Appeals reversed the holding of the trial court and found plaintiff entitled to receive no-fault benefits.
