Trevon Johnson v. Michigan Assigned Claims Plan
368048
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 16, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Trevon Johnson was injured while riding a “mini bike” in the bike lane when hit by a car making a left turn.
- Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed and was uninsured at the time of the accident.
- Plaintiff filed a claim for PIP (personal injury protection) benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan and Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility, who denied assignment for coverage.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing the mini bike qualified as a motorcycle under Michigan no-fault law and, because it was uninsured, plaintiff was ineligible for PIP benefits.
- The trial court denied summary disposition, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the vehicle’s classification; a consent judgment for $200,000 was later entered for plaintiff.
- Defendants appealed, challenging the denial of summary disposition and arguing that plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the vehicle a motorcycle under the no-fault act requiring insurance? | The vehicle’s classification is unclear; there’s a question of fact about whether it is a motorcycle, moped, or ORV. | The mini bike meets all statutory elements of a motorcycle and is thus subject to insurance requirements. | Yes; the court deemed the vehicle a motorcycle under MCL 500.3101(3)(g). |
| Is plaintiff ineligible for PIP benefits due to operating an uninsured motorcycle? | Plaintiff is entitled to PIP unless it’s clearly established the vehicle is a motorcycle. | Plaintiff is barred by statute from recovering PIP because he was uninsured on a motorcycle. | Yes; as an owner of an uninsured motorcycle, plaintiff cannot recover PIP. |
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact regarding the engine size and vehicle classification? | Disputed knowledge of motor size and photographic ambiguity create factual questions. | Documentary and testimonial evidence proved the engine exceeded 50cc and was not a moped or ORV. | No genuine issue; evidence showed engine size and classification were met. |
| Was the vehicle an ORV or a moped (which would allow PIP eligibility)? | Possibly; argued features/photos left open a factual question. | No; the vehicle is not designed for off-road use and exceeds motor size limits for mopeds. | No; vehicle did not qualify as an ORV or moped under statutory definitions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Transamerica Ins. Servs., 441 Mich 508 (Mich. 1992) (distinguishes street-legal motorcycles from ORVs based on design and modification for highway use)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (Mich. 1999) (sets standard for summary disposition; no genuine issue of material fact means summary disposition may be granted)
- BC Tile & Marble Co v. Multi Bldg Co, Inc., 288 Mich App 576 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (outlines de novo review standard for summary disposition in Michigan)
- Gividen v. Bristol West Ins. Co., 305 Mich App 639 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (highway vehicle can lose status via modification)
- Schoenith v. Auto Club of Mich., 161 Mich App 232 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987) (heavily modified vehicles can change statutory classification)
- Apperson v. Citizens Mut. Ins. Co., 130 Mich App 799 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) (vehicle’s intended use and actual modifications are determinative for statutory purposes)