Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 119665; Published
Judges Cynar, Gillis, and Weaver; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 186 Mich App 656; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (Other Motorized Devices) [§3101(2)(e)]
Entitlement to No-Fault PIP Benefits: Bodily Injury Requirement [§3105(1)]
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Motor Vehicle Involvement [§3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the entry of judgment in favor of the defendant and remanded for further proceedings a case in which plaintiff claimed no-fault benefits arising from a collision between the motorcycle he was operating and a construction vehicle. The trial court had concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to personal protection benefits under §3105 because the vehicle insured by defendant was not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the statute.
The vehicle insured by the defendant was a "wheel loader" owned by a construction company. It is a four-wheeled, tractor-type machine, powered by a six-cylinder diesel engine, equipped with a front bucket. It is designed primarily for construction work: to dig, lift, load and carry. It has a single seat in the cab for the operator, and its maximum speed is less than 25 mph.
Although the vehicle had more than two wheels and was operated by other than muscular power as required by §3105, the trial court found that it was not included within that definition, as it was not "designed for operation on the highway," even though it was in fact being operated on a public highway at the time of the accident. The Court of Appeals held that this ruling was erroneous. Whether a vehicle is operated upon a public highway or designed for operation on the highway are separate considerations under the statute. When a vehicle was operated on a public highway, that element of the statute is met, and the judge does not need to analyze whether the vehicle was designed for operation upon a public highway. Coffey v State Farm, 162 Mich App 264 (1987).
Further, the court ruled that the registration status of a vehicle is not relevant to whether it is a motor vehicle and thus covered by the no-fault statute. Lee v DAIIE, 412 Mich 505 (1982).
The decision of the trial court was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
