Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259221; Unpublished
Judges Smolenski, Owens, and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motor Vehicle (ORVs and ATVs) [3101(2)(g)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for plaintiff, finding that his off road vehicle (ORV) was a motor vehicle for purposes of the No-Fault Act. The plaintiff in this case was injured when he failed to make a turn while driving his ORV on a public highway and the vehicle subsequently left the road and crashed. Defendant refused to provide no-fault benefits, arguing the ORV was not a motor vehicle for purposes of the No-Fault Act. The Court of Appeals disagreed, reasoning that because there was no evidence that plaintiff operated the vehicle any place other than the public roadway, and the only time the vehicle was not driven on the roadway was when plaintiff failed to negotiate a turn, the vehicle was a motor vehicle for no-fault purposes. In this regard, the court stated:
“Michigan’s no-fault act defines a motor vehicle to include a vehicle that is ‘operated or designed for operation upon a public highway. . . .’ The question of whether an ORV is a motor vehicle for purposes of the no-fault act is decided by the sole factor of where the vehicle was operated. . . . In this case there is no evidence that plaintiff operated the ORV any place other than the public roadway. Plaintiff drove the vehicle on the roadway and only left the roadway when he failed to negotiate a curve, thereby causing the accident. While the crash site ultimately ended up off the public highway, the operation of the ORV occurred only on the public highway, and falls within the unambiguous statutory definition of motor vehicle.”
