Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 183934; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Corrigan, and Benson; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motor Vehicle (Other Motorized Devices) [§3101(2)(e)]
Workers Comp Liens Regarding Auto Tort Claims [§3116]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Workers Disability Compensation Act (MCL 418.1, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a backhoe was not a motor vehicle for purposes of the no-fault act, and, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to benefits for injuries sustained in an accident involving that type of equipment. The case arose in the context of a claim for reimbursement of workers' compensation benefits paid by the workers' compensation carrier.
Plaintiff was injured when the bucket of a backhoe fell on his foot and amputated his right big toe. Plaintiff brought suit against the defendant contractors and received a $70,000 settlement. Ohio Casualty paid plaintiff $22,231.36 in workers' compensation benefits for which it sought reimbursement from plaintiff’s tort recovery against the contractors. The trial court ruled that Ohio Casualty's reimbursement rights were limited to the amount the payment of workers' compensation benefits exceeded the no-fault benefits to which plaintiff would otherwise be entitled to receive.
The Court of Appeals found the trial court correctly concluded that the workers* compensation carrier's rights for reimbursement were only to the extent the benefits it paid exceeded the amounts of no-fault benefits that the claimant could have received, regardless of whether or not the no-fault benefits were actually received. However, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erroneously concluded that the backhoe was a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the no-fault act. The term "motor vehicle" is defined under §3101 (2)(e) of the no-fault act to mean "a vehicle . . . operated or designed or operation upon a public highway by power other than muscular power which has more than two wheels." Here, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s contention that the backhoe was a "motor vehicle" for the reason it was capable of being operated on a public highway. The court found that there was no evidence that the backhoe was designed for operation on a public highway and no evidence from which the trial court could conclude that the machine was a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the no-fault act, and therefore, its finding in this regard was clearly erroneous.
