Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 325328; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Sawyer, and Hoekstra; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Personal Protection Insurance (PIP) Benefits Entitlement [§3105]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was improperly granted to plaintiff on the issue of whether plaintiff’s motorcycle accident involved a motor vehicle for purposes of collecting no-fault benefits, because facts that were essential to a determination of motor vehicle involvement remained unanswered.
Plaintiff in this case was injured in a motorcycle accident. He was unable to recall the accident and his passenger, Tiffany Clarke, gave inconsistent accounts to police, in her affidavit, and in her deposition testimony. Defendant Automobile Club Insurance Company denied plaintiff’s claim for benefits, asserting the accident did not involve a motor vehicle. Plaintiff filed suit seeking coverage and moved for summary disposition, claiming that Clarke’s version of events, as set forth in her affidavit and deposition testimony, was uncontroverted and, therefore, no question of fact remained as to the existence of a motor vehicle causing the accident. Clarke, about a month after the accident, described the accident in her affidavit as follows: “[Plaintiff] was proceeding northbound on Nolet Road, it was dark and rainy. The road was under construction, and we were proceeding well below the posted speed limit due to the gravel conditions on the roadway. A car rapidly pulled up behind [plaintiff’s] motorcycle and then attempted to pass us by pulling around to our left. The car cut back in front of us causing [plaintiff] to brake to avoid contact, which resulted in [plaintiff] sliding on the gravel and losing control of the motorcycle.” The trial court accepted Clarke’s version of the events and granted summary disposition for plaintiff, concluding a motor vehicle was involved in the accident.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that questions existed regarding whether a motor vehicle was involved in the accident. According to the appeals court, the trial court erred by making factual findings, assessing Clarke’s credibility, ignoring her prior inconsistent statements, and failing to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party (defendant).
In so holding, the Court of Appeals emphasized the inconsistent statements made by Clarke, noting that it could not be ignored that her description of events in her affidavit and deposition testimony conflicted with her statements to police. The court also pointed out that Clarke had a motive to lie, because she had her own no-fault benefit suit pending. The court said:
“Indeed, summary disposition is considered suspect ‘where motive and intent are at issue or where the credibility of a witness is crucial.’ … Given Clarke’s inconsistent descriptions of the accident, it is for a jury to assess her credibility and the trial court thus erred by crediting Clarke’s description of events as set forth in her affidavit and deposition testimony. … This is particularly true given that Clarke has a motive to lie insofar as she has filed her own no-fault suit, plaintiff is Clarke’s ‘very good friend,’ and whether she and plaintiff obtain benefits from defendant will depend on the involvement of a motor vehicle in the accident. … Moreover, Clarke’s credibility in this case is crucial to determining whether a motor vehicle was involved and, because the truth of a material factual assertion depends on Clarke’s credibility, summary disposition should not have been granted. … In particular, aside from Clarke’s description of events, there was no evidence of a car on the roadway and there was evidence from which reasonable minds could conclude that plaintiff simply lost control of his motorcycle. That is, plaintiff had no memory of the accident and could not corroborate Clarke’s version of events. Michael Elliot, a witness at the scene, stated that he did not see a car on the road and that he did not see ‘how there could have been’ a car. Likewise, the responding police officer saw no indication of a car on the road. An expert in accident reconstruction examined the scene, and he found no signs of a car on the roadway. Witnesses, including Clarke, indicated that the road conditions were poor for motorcycle travel: it was dark, there was loose gravel, and it was raining. The accident occurred on the curve of a road, which Elliot in particular described as ‘a real bad corner’ that ‘makes a bad curve.’ Elliot explained that plaintiff ‘didn’t even come close to making the corner, just went straight.’ Finally, the evidence showed that plaintiff had a blood alcohol content of .16 at the time of the accident. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to defendant, a material question of fact remains regarding the cause of the accident and the involvement of a ‘motor vehicle.’”
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals said:
“[B]earing in mind that Clarke’s credibility poses an issue for the jury, the conflicting evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the accident created a question of fact as to whether a motor vehicle was involved in plaintiff’s crash. Because a material question of fact remains regarding the involvement of a ‘motor vehicle’ in plaintiff’s accident, the trial court erred by granting summary disposition to plaintiff.”
