Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #290198; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Hoekstra, and Servitto; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; 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:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
Off-Road Recreational Vehicles and All Terrain Vehicles (ORVs and ATVs)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals determined that the 2008 amendment to MCL 500.3101(2)(e), which excluded off-road vehicles (ORVs) from the definition of motor vehicles, was to be applied prospectively only and, therefore, did not apply to the injured plaintiff’s 2007 motor vehicle accident, and that she, therefore, was entitled to no-fault automobile insurance benefits through her personal automobile insurance policy for injuries she sustained in an off-road vehicle (ORV) accident.
Plaintiff was operating an ORV on the Little Manistee Trail when she was involved in an accident sustaining injuries that left her paralyzed in 2007. The ORV was not insured, but plaintiff was insured under a no-fault automobile insurance policy issued by Grange Insurance Company. Grange contended that plaintiff was not entitled to Michigan no-fault automobile insurance (PIP) benefits, because MCL 500.3101(2)(e), enacted in 2008 pursuant to a legislative amendment, specifically excluded ORVs from the definition of motor vehicles. Defendant argued that the amended statute was “remedial in nature” and, therefore, should be applied retroactively to plaintiff’s accident. The Court of Appeals held that the amendment was prospective only. The court held that in determining whether a statute should be applied prospectively or retroactively, the intent of the Legislature controls. Further, the court stated that statutes are to be applied prospectively unless the Legislature manifests an intent to the contrary. However, a statute is to be applied retroactively when it is merely remedial or procedural, adopted to clarify an existing statute and resolve a controversy regarding its meaning.
In July 2008, the Legislature added language to the definition of a “motor vehicle” as contained in MCL 500.3101(2)(e), stating that “motor vehicle does not include an ORV.” However, the Legislature did not provide any clear, unequivocal language suggesting this amendment was to be retroactive. Prior to the amendment, Michigan courts had held that ORVs fit into the definition of a “motor vehicle” under the No-Fault Act. The court held that it could be presumed that the Legislature knew of prior Michigan rulings concerning the definition of an ORV and that with such knowledge, consciously elected to leave out language such that the statute would be applied retroactively. Further, the court examined legislative intent and determined that it was intended by the Legislature to exclude ORVs from the definition of a motor vehicle in order to address a new situation under the No-Fault Act where ORVs were permitted to operate on the maintained portion of a road or street under certain circumstances, and that it was anticipated, as a result, that there would be more people injured from the increased ORV traffic. Accordingly, the court determined that the Legislature did not intend to reform or extend existing rights, and that the statute was not remedial in nature and was to be applied prospectively only.
