Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 93943; Published
Judges Cynar, Shepherd, and Jasper; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 162 Mich App 264; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (ORVs and ATVs) [§3101(2)(g)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals dealt with another case concerning whether or not a recreational type vehicle constituted a motor vehicle within the meaning of §3101(2)(c) of the No-Fault Act.
In this case, plaintiff was injured while operating a four-wheel go-cart powered by a 1-cylinder, 214 horsepower engine. The critical fact in this case was that the accident occurred on a public road. Defendant denied benefits claiming that the injuries arose from an incident not involving a motor vehicle as defined by the Michigan No-Fault Act. The trial judge granted defendant's motion for summary disposition and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
The Court of Appeals held that the vehicle met the definitions of a motor vehicle contained in §3101(2)(c) in that it was being operated by power other than muscular power, and that it had more than two wheels. Additionally, the third requirement of the statutory definition was also met in that the vehicle was "operated or designed for operation on a public highway." In this case, the vehicle was being operated on a public highway. Other cases dealing with similar circumstances did not involve injuries occurring while the vehicle was actually being operated on a public highway. The Court distinguished Apperson (Item No. 691) and Ebernickel (Item No. 896) on this basis. The Court of Appeals in the instant case held that it was not relevant whether or not the vehicle was registered under Michigan law.
The Court of Appeals remanded this case for further proceedings in light of defendant's additional argument that if the go-cart is deemed a motor vehicle, plaintiff is prohibited from receiving personal protection benefits because of the exclusion in the No-Fault Act which does not permit a person who owns a motor vehicle involved in an accident to collect if the vehicle is not insured as required by §3101.
