November 01, 2024
Michigan Court Clarifies Vehicle Classification for No-Fault Insurance
November 01, 2024
What do you call a vehicle with two wheels and an engine? In the recently published decision of Johnson v MACP, et al., plaintiff Trevon Johnson argued that his vehicle was a moped or off-road vehicle. The defendants in the case argued that it was a motorcycle, as defined in the no-fault act. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with the defendants. It held that Johnson’s vehicle was a motorcycle under the no-fault act. Because Johnson did not have insurance for his “motorcycle,” he was ineligible for benefits under the statute.
Plaintiff Trevon Johnson was riding a “mini bike” in a bike lane. He was hit by a car making a left turn. Johnson suffered severe injuries, and the vehicle was destroyed. Johnson’s vehicle was not insured, so he filed a claim for PIP benefits with the defendants.
The no-fault act requires any person that owns a motor vehicle or motorcycle to have no-fault insurance. Under certain statutory requirements, a person can seek PIP benefits from the Michigan Automobile Insurance Facility and the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan without insurance of their own, as Johnson did. The defendants did not assign an insurer to provide benefits to Johnson, however, arguing that Johnson’s vehicle was a “motorcycle” under the no-fault act. If Johnson’s vehicle was a motorcycle, then he was required to have insurance. By not having insurance on a motorcycle, Johnson would be ineligible for benefits. If his vehicle was not a “motorcycle” under the act, then he could pursue a claim with the defendants.
What is a motorcycle? The no-fault act defines a “motorcycle” as “a vehicle that has a saddle or seat for the use of the rider, is designed to travel on not more than 3 wheels in contact with the ground, and is equipped with a motor that exceeds 50 cubic centimeters piston displacement.” MCL 500.3101(3)(g). The statute specifically excludes a moped or off-road recreational vehicle (“ORV”). The parties agreed that Johnson’s vehicle had a saddle and only two wheels. At issue in the case was whether the motor was large enough and whether the vehicle was a moped or ORV.
The Circuit Court, based largely on photographs, determined the vehicle was not a motorcycle. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision. Regarding the vehicle’s engine, an affidavit from the previous owner of the engine showed that it was larger than 50 ccs (301 ccs, in fact). The engine’s size meant that Johnson’s vehicle could not fit the statutory definition of “moped” (requiring an engine with less than 100 ccs, MCL 500.3101(3)(f)). Johnson’s last remaining argument was that the vehicle was an ORV.
Under the no-fault act, an ORV must be “designed for off-road use” and “capable of cross-country travel without benefit of road or trail” on or over any terrain. MCL 500.3013(3)(k). Johnson testified that the vehicle had brake lights, headlights, turn signals, and street tires. He also called it his “street bike” and was riding on the street, in the bike lane, at the time of the accident. Based on this evidence, the Court held that the vehicle was not an ORV designed for off-road travel but rather a motorcycle under the no-fault act.
This decision reiterates the need for drivers to purchase no-fault insurance and to follow the law depending on what type of vehicle they have. Because Johnson’s vehicle was a motorcycle under the no-fault act, he was required to purchase insurance on that vehicle. By driving in an uninsured vehicle, Johnson made himself ineligible for benefits. Drivers and insurers alike need to be diligent when unique vehicles are involved.