Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #313886; Unpublished
Judges Beckering, Stephens, and Riordan; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Compulsory Insurance Requirements for Owners or Registrants of Motor Vehicles Required to be Registered [§3101(1)]
Security Requirement Applicable for Highway Use [§3101(1)]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
Determination of Involved Vehicle [§3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was precluded from recovering personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under the provisions of MCL 500.3113(b), where plaintiff was the owner of an inoperable uninsured vehicle which was being towed from a mechanic’s business to plaintiff’s mother’s home, and where the tow chain broke and plaintiff was struck while attempting to move the vehicle off the road.
In upholding the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of Titan Insurance Company, the Court of Appeals held that under §3113(b) of the No-Fault Act, a person is not entitled to be paid PIP benefits for accidental bodily injury, if at the time of the accident, the person was the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle “involved in the accident” with respect to which the security required by §3101 was not in effect.
In this case, the vehicle was inoperable and being towed from a mechanic’s place of business to another location three miles distant. When the tow chain broke, plaintiff Walker’s uninsured vehicle was left within a traveled lane of the roadway, and was being moved to the side of the road when Walker was struck and injured.
The court held that §3101(1) requires the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle to maintain insurance “during the period the motor vehicle is driven or moved upon the highway.” Although plaintiff was not driving the vehicle, the court held that the vehicle was being “moved” upon the highway.
The court also addressed plaintiff’s argument that MCL 257.216 provides exceptions to the requirement of registration and, therefore, having to maintain insurance. The exception states that a “vehicle that is driven or moved on a street or highway only for the purpose of crossing that street or highway from one property to another” is exempt from registration and from having to maintain insurance. The court held that where the plaintiff’s vehicle’s wheels were in contact with the highway, albeit not on its own power, it was being moved on the public highway in accordance with § 3101(1) and, therefore, required to be insured. Since the vehicle was not insured, its owner, plaintiff Walker, cannot recover PIP benefits.
Accordingly, the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of Titan Insurance was affirmed.
