United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Case #12-13200
Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Opinion Not Available 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (Other Motorized Devices) [§3101(2)(e)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion involving the No-Fault Act’s definition of “motor vehicle,” Federal Judge Nancy G. Edmunds held that, where an insured was driving a moped on a public road and collided with a golf cart, injuring its occupants: 1) neither the moped operator’s homeowners’ policy nor the moped operator’s no-fault policy provided liability coverage to the injured golf cart occupants, but that 2) PIP benefits may be available because the no-fault policy did not specifically exclude off-road vehicles.
Plaintiffs were Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (LMF) and Liberty Insurance Corporation (Liberty). LMF provided homeowners’ coverage and Liberty provided no-fault coverage to defendants, the Holkas. The policies were issued in Michigan. While on vacation in Ohio, Mrs. Holka was killed when the moped she was operating on a public street collided with a golf cart, injuring the golf cart occupants. LMF and Liberty were defending an Ohio lawsuit for tort damages, which was filed by the injured golf cart occupants. LMF and Liberty then filed this declaratory judgment action, seeking a ruling that they were not obligated to provide liability coverage under either the homeowners’ policy or the no-fault policy, nor were they obligated to pay PIP benefits under the no-fault policy.
Regarding the argument that liability coverage was unavailable because of the “motor vehicle exclusion” in the homeowners’ policy, Judge Edmunds said the term “motor vehicle” in the policy was not ambiguous:
“[W]hen reading the homeowners’ policy, which does not define the terms ‘motor vehicle’ …, it appears to the Court that the language is intended to effect the broadest possible exclusion. Liberty could have left the exclusion clause at ‘motor vehicles,’ however, it chose to add the term ‘or all other motorized land conveyances.’ … While a moped might not be a ‘motor vehicle’ in common parlance, it certainly qualifies as a ‘motorized land conveyance.’ That is, a moped, indeed, the moped in this case, has a motor, travels on land, and conveys people from place to place. … The Court finds, therefore, that the moped was a ‘motorized land conveyance’ which was subject to motor vehicle registration and is excluded from coverage under the Liberty homeowners’ policy.”
As for the claim that there was no liability coverage under the no-fault policy, Judge Edmunds pointed to the policy’s definition of “auto” and its “four-wheel exception,” which said coverage was excluded for vehicles “designed mainly for use off public roads,” such as golf carts and mopeds. The judge said:
“The Ohio accident … was between a ‘vehicle with less than four wheels’ — the moped — and a vehicle ‘designed mainly for use off public roads’ — the golf cart. Therefore, regardless of who was driving which vehicle, both vehicles involved in this accident fall into excluded categories.”
Regarding PIP coverage under the no-fault policy, Judge Edmunds ruled that defendants’ claims for benefits should not be summarily dismissed. In so ruling, the judge looked at the definition of “motor vehicle” in the No-Fault Act and in the applicable no-fault policy, and said:
“LMF’s argument hinges on a determination that the golf cart is not a motor vehicle under the terms of the PIP section of the Auto Policy. The Court is not convinced that the PIP section’s definition conclusively excludes golf carts.”
Judge Edmunds noted this case was different from prior cases cited by LMF that had interpreted the term “motor vehicle” in a governmental immunity context. The present case, the judge said, did not involve governmental immunity and, as such, the courts “must liberally construe” the No-Fault Act’s provisions in favor of the insured and any intended beneficiaries.
Next, Judge Edmunds noted that the definition of “motor vehicle” in the No-Fault Act does not include a motorcycle or a moped, or off-road vehicle. She looked at the definition of “motor vehicle” in LMF’s no-fault policy, which said:
“’Auto’ means a motor vehicle or trailer operated or designed for use on public roads. It does not include: a. A Motorcycle or moped; b. A farm tractor or other implement of husbandry which is not subject to the registration requirements of the Michigan Vehicle Code; or c. A vehicle operated by muscular power or with fewer than three wheels.’”
According to Judge Edmunds, it was “notable” that LMF’s no-fault policy did not include the available statutory exclusion for off-road vehicles. The judge said:
“The Court finds the decision by LMF to leave out the ORV language indicative of an intent to provide broader coverage than the statutorily required minimum. As the golf cart in this case does not fall into the enumerated exceptions in the PIP policy, and because it was ‘operated … on [a] public road[ ],’ the Court finds that the Ohio accident may indeed qualify for coverage under the PIP Section of the LMF Auto Policy.”
In conclusion, Judge Edmunds held that: 1) no liability coverage was available under the homeowners’ policy; 2) the auto policy did not provide liability coverage; and 3) the PIP provision in the no-fault policy potentially provided coverage.
