Donald Bergman v. Bryce R Cotanche
330438
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 23, 2017Background
- On Dec. 12, 2012, Cotanche, an employee of Boyne USA, operated an unregistered, uninsured front-end loader to plow snow and turned onto a public road to reach the next plow site, colliding with plaintiff Bergman.
- Plaintiffs sued Boyne USA and Cotanche, alleging owner liability under Michigan’s no-fault act because the loader was a motor vehicle required to be registered and insured.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing the loader qualified as “special mobile equipment” under MCL 257.62 and was therefore exempt from registration and no-fault insurance requirements.
- The trial court denied summary disposition, finding the loader was not “incidentally operated or moved on the highway” and thus required registration and insurance.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the loader met the statutory definition of “special mobile equipment” and whether that status exempted it from registration and mandatory no-fault coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the front-end loader is "special mobile equipment" exempt from registration | Bergman: loader was not "incidentally operated or moved on the highway" so it must be registered | Defendants: loader is road-construction/maintenance machinery and its limited highway travel was incidental | The loader qualifies as special mobile equipment: not designed/used primarily for transport and its short travel on public road was incidental |
| Whether special mobile equipment must be registered if driven on a highway | Bergman: MCL 257.216(d) and related language require registration when driven on highways | Defendants: MCL 257.216(d) is permissive (“may issue”), so registration is not mandatory | Court: registration is permissive; qualifying special mobile equipment need not be registered and thus is not subject to no-fault insurance requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Davidson v. Secretary of State, 351 Mich 4 (1957) (clarifies that enumerated equipment must also meet the general definition of special mobile equipment)
- Auto-Owners Ins Co. v. Stenberg Bros., Inc., 227 Mich App 45 (1997) (tanker-trailer used as stationary storage was special mobile equipment because highway movement was incidental)
- People v. Metamora Water Servs., Inc., 276 Mich App 376 (2007) (daily or near-daily highway use of water trucks undermined incidental-usage requirement)