Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 67559; Published
Opinion by Justice Michael F. Cavanagh; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 417 Mich 590; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage and Loss of Use) [§3121(1)]
Vehicles and Trailers, Including Motorcycles [§3123(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Justice Michael Cavanagh, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed item number 420 and held that damages sustained by a farm tractor in a motor vehicle accident which occurs while the tractor is being operated upon a public highway are excluded from property protection insurance benefits under §3123 of the No-Fault Act. The Court held that the term "vehicle" as used in the exclusionary provisions of §3123(l)(a) is not synonymous with the term "motor vehicle" as used in §3101(2Xc). Even though the legislature may have used the term "motor vehicle"and vehicle" interchangeably in other provisions of the Act, the fact that the term "vehicles" in §3123(l)(a) is accorded a separate definition in order to preclude the application in that section of the more limited term "motor vehicle," as defined in §3101(2)(c), indicates that the legislature obviously chose to include a broader class of vehicles within the scope of the exclusionary provisions of §3123(l)(a). The Court stated that the term "vehicles" in the exclusionary provision specifically refers to vehicles which are "operated or designed for operation upon a public highway by a power other than muscular power." A farm tractor operated on a public highway clearly satisfies this definition.
The Court also went on to hold that even if it were to accept the plaintiff’s contention that the definition of "motor vehicle" in §3101(2)(c) were to govern, a tractor would still be excluded from property protection benefits under that definition §3101(2)(c) defines a motor vehicle as something "operated or designed for operation upon a public highway by power other than muscular power which has more than two wheels." Because a tractor has more than two wheels, it would also satisfy this definition and thus be excluded under §3123.
The Court was careful to point out, however, that a farm tractor involved in a motor vehicle accident is not always excluded from receipt of property protection insurance benefits. It is only when the tractor is being operated upon a public highway that the exclusionary provision would apply. The Court stated, "If the Legislature had intended that property "be designated once and for all as a vehicle or not a vehicle under §3123(lXa), the Legislature would not have included in the definition of a vehicle that it be one which is operated or designed for operation upon a public highway. These words or qualifications clearly establish that property may or may not be a vehicle under this section depending upon the location of its use."
The Court also summarily rejected due process and equal protection challenges raised by the plaintiff. The Court held the classification is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest in promoting low cost motor vehicle insurance coverage for Michigan residents. Therefore, the treatment of tractors differently from other non-stationary property such as farm animals and trains is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
[Author's Comment: Under this decision, the only way a tractor or other farm implement can be protected from property damage sustained on a public highway is by the purchase of optional collision coverage.]
