Gongwer News Service

 

A mini bike meeting the legal standards of a motorcycle should be considered as such under the No-Fault Act, and if the vehicle is not insured, a person injured riding a mini bike cannot recover personal injury protection benefits, a unanimous Michigan Court of Appeals panel ruled last Wednesday.

In a published opinion released last Thursday written by Judge Kathleen Jansen, joined by Judge Mark Boonstra and Judge Noah Hood, the panel in Johnson v. Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (COA Docket No. 368048) reversed an order of the Wayne Circuit Court granting summary disposition to the plaintiff. 

The order was vacated and remanded for an order granting summary disposition to the defendants, the assigned claims plan and the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility.

The case centered around the plaintiff driving a mini bike in a bike lane. A car trying to make a left turn collided with the plaintiff, causing injuries that required two surgeries, a long recovery period and physical therapy.

The mini bike was destroyed and not insured, so he filed a PIP benefits claim with the defendant, but it was not assigned to an insurer, and a lawsuit followed.

MACP and MAIPF moved for summary disposition, arguing the plaintiff's vehicle was a motorcycle under the No-Fault Act, and was not eligible for PIP benefits because the plaintiff was uninsured.

Meanwhile, the plaintiff argued a genuine issue of fact on whether the vehicle qualified as a motorcycle.

A Wayne Circuit Court judge agreed with the plaintiff and denied the defendants' motion for summary disposition. MACP and MAIPF moved for reconsideration, arguing that the trial court committed a palpable error by relying on photos of the vehicle rather than classifying it based on the statutory elements of a motorcycle.

Reconsideration was denied, leading to a consent judgment between the parties staying collection pending an appeal.

In the appellate court's decision released Thursday, Jansen wrote that no person may recover PIP benefits for accidental bodily injury under the No-Fault Act if, at the time of the collision, the person is the owner of an uninsured motorcycle.

The collision wasn't in dispute, the classification of the vehicle was, Jansen wrote before concluding that an analysis of whether the mini bike was an off-road vehicle or a motorcycle would indeed answer the issue.

To that end, Jansen wrote that the vehicle was not an ORV because it was not designed for or capable of off-road travel.

"Although the … caselaw demonstrates instances where a vehicle was modified to the extent that it became an ORV, and here, we have a vehicle that was modified to the extent of being street-capable, the same reasoning applies," she wrote. "The plaintiff's vehicle was modified to the extent that it could be driven on the street. His testimony established that it had brake lights, headlights, turn signals, and 'big street tires.' The plaintiff argues for the first time on appeal that the photograph of the vehicle does not clearly show these modifications; however, the plaintiff's deposition testimony clearly established these features on the mini bike."

Jansen said the plaintiff referred to it as a "street bike," and was riding in the bike lane when the collision occurred.

"Thus, there is no question of fact, based on plaintiff's undisputed testimony, that his vehicle was not an ORV because the modifications made it neither designed for nor capable of off-road travel," Jansen wrote.

The panel concluded that the mini bike was also a motorcycle as a matter of law, requiring the court to grant summary disposition to the MACP and MAIPF.