Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 51568; Published
Judges R. B. Burns, T. M. Burns, and Cynar; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 107 Mich App 261; 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 a unanimous Opinion by Judge Cynar, the Court of Appeals held that a farm tractor which sustained property damage when struck from the rear by a motor vehicle was not entitled to claim property protection insurance benefits from the insurer of the motor vehicle pursuant to the exclusion provisions of §3123 of the Act The plaintiff in this case argued that the word "vehicles" in the exclusion provisions of §3123 meant the same thing as the term "motor vehicle" in §3101 of the Act. The plaintiff went on to argue that a tractor does not come within the definition of a motor vehicle because it is not required to be registered and therefore the property protection exclusion provisions do not apply to property damage sustained by a tractor.
The Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments and held that the terms "motor vehicle" and "Vehicles" were not interchangeable and had distinct meanings. In this regard, the Court cited Degrandchamp v Michigan Mutual (item number 342) and Braden v Spencer (item number 357). However, the Court went on to say that even if the terms were interchangeable, a tractor was indeed a motor vehicle under §3101(2) in that it was a vehicle which was being operated on a public highway and was being operated by power other than muscular power. The fact that the tractor did not have to be registered is relevant only for purposes of whether or not the tractor is compelled to carry the requisite no-fault insurance. It is not determinative of its status as a motor vehicle.
The Court also rejected plaintiff’s contention that the statute was unconstitutional in excluding such a farm implement from the property protection benefit scheme. The Court noted that such a vehicle is no different than other motor vehicles, both of which have the opportunity to protect themselves by the purchase of optional collision coverage.
