Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 119716; Published
Judges Brennan, Murphy, and Kelly; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Brennan
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 188 Mich App 486; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Obligation of Motorcycle Owner/Registrant to Insure Motorcycles [§3103]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (ORVs and ATVs) [§3101(2)(g)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Off-Road Recreational Vehicles and All Terrain Vehicles (ORVs and ATVs)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Brennan, the Court of Appeals dealt with a "case of first impression involving the interplay between the No-Fault Insurance Act and the Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Act (MCLA 257.1601, etseq)." The court framed the issue as follows:
“The basic dispute is whether a vehicle which may be considered as either an ORV or a motorcycle under the no-fault act, but which is not registered as an ORV, is exempt from having to be covered by a no-fault insurance policy when operating on a public road. . . . Pursuant to §3103 of the act, an owner or registrant of a motorcycle shall provide security against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for property damage, bodily injury or death suffered by a person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that motorcycle."
It should be noted that the motorcycle involved in this case had a piston displacement of 125 cubic centimeters and was not equipped with headlights, brake lights, or turn signals. Plaintiff did not have insurance or license plates for the motorcycle and did not register it as an off the road recreational vehicle. The motorcycle was involved in a collision with a truck on a public road.
In ruling on this issue, the court cited its earlier decision in Coffey v State Farm (Item No. 1372) and held:
"In accord with the analysis of Coffey, supra, if a motorcycle which fits the definition of an ORV is used on a public highway, then it is subject to the insurance requirements of the no-fault act, regardless of whether it is capable of being registered to be driven on a highway. In the instant case, we find that since plaintiff was operating his motorcycle on a public highway, he was required by §3103(1) to provide security for his motorcycle, and since he failed to so do. he is not entitled to PIP benefits pursuant to§3113(b).” (emphasis added)
