54A District Court for the City of Lansing; Docket 30, Page 46; Unpublished
Judge Charles Filice; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion, District Judge Charles Filice held that by enacting the "mini tort" provision, the legislature did not intend to preclude owners of motorcycles from recovering for property damage to their cycles while permitting such recovery to the owners of other motor vehicles. The Court reasoned that the exclusion of motorcycles from the no-fault scheme as approved by the Supreme Court in Shavers v Attorney General, item number 85, was predicated upon the concern over excessive insurance premiums that would result if motorcyclists were required to purchase insurance. Such a concern is not evident in the mini tort situation. Therefore, the plaintiff motorcyclist was entitled to recover up to the $400 mini tort maximum for damage to his motor vehicle.
