This is аn action for a declaration of rights as between a no-fault insurance сompany and a homeowner’s insurance company. Plaintiff appeаls as of right from the trial court’s entry of summary disposition for defendants on the parties’ cross motions under MCR 2.116(0(10) and MCR 2.116(I)(2). We reverse.
The facts are undisputed. Defendant Mary Wilсox was struck by an all-terrain vehicle (atv) driven by fourteen-year-old codefеndant Rick Powell and owned by codefendants Roger and Marie Powell, his parents. Plaintiff is the Powells’ homeowner’s insurer. Defendant Transamerica paid benefits tо Mary and Earl Wilcox under the uninsured motorist provisions of the Wilcoxes’ no-fault insurance policy. When Transamerica sought benefits from plaintiff as the Wilcoxes’ subrоgee, plaintiff filed this action.
The homeowner’s policy issued to the Powells by рlaintiff, as amended in 1983, contains the following language:
exclusions
This policy does not apply:
1. Under Coverage E — Personal Liability and Coverage F — Medical payments to others:
(a) to bodily injury or property damage arisingout of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of:
(1) any aircraft; or
(2) any motor vehicle or motorized bicycle owned or operated by . . . any insured ....
additional definitions
3. "motor vehicle”: means a land motor vehicle . . . designed for travel on public roads . . . but does nоt include . . . any of the following: . . . recreational motor vehicle ... or, if not subject to motor vehicle registration, any equipment which is designed for use principally off public roads.
6. "recreational motor vehicle”: means (1) a golf cart or snowmobile or,
(2) if not subject to motor vehicle registration, any other land motor vehicle designed for recreational use off public roads.
We find that, although poorly drafted, the homeowner’s policy unambiguously excludes atvs from coverage. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins Co of Michigan v Stark,
Normally, the ordinary, common-sense definition of the term "motor vеhicle” would seem to include an atv because it has a motor and travels оn land. See id. at 182-185. However, unlike mopeds such as the one involved in Stark, an atv is "not designed for travel on public roads” because it lacks equipment such as lights, turn signals, a windshield, a rear-view mirror, and other items that are required by law in order for a vehicle to be allowed to "travel on public roads.” See MCL 257.683 et seq.; MSA 9.2383 et seq.; cf. Stark, supra at 186-187 (noting pervasive regulation of use of mopeds on public roads). Thus, at first
However, the homeowner’s policy restricts the definition of covered recreational vehicles to either golf carts and snowmоbiles or, "if not subject to motor vehicle registration, any other land motor vehicle designed for recreational use off public roads.” (Emphasis added.) Interprеting identical language, the Stark Court noted that "[t]he policy excludes coverage unless both [quoted] requirements are met.”
As in Stark, where the moped was being used on a path for bicyclists and pedestrians, defendants here argue that the atv was not "subject to mоtor vehicle registration” because it was not being "driven or moved upon a highwаy” but, rather, on the shoulder of the highway. See MCL 257.216; MSA 9.1916. "Whatever the merit of such an argument undеr other circumstances, the hypothesis does not fit the facts presented here.” Stark, supra at 186. Because the "shoulder” is defined by statute as a "portion of a highway,” thе atv was "subject to motor vehicle registration” while it was being driven on the shoulder. MCL 257.1501(k); MSA 9.3200(1)(k); Gregg v State Hwy Dep’t,
Plaintiff next argues that defendant Transamerica may not assert a claim to benefits as a subrogee because it рaid benefits as a "volunteer” where it clearly had no liability. We disagree. Transаmerica’s no-fault policy excludes from the definition of uninsured automobiles those vehicles "designed for use principally off public roads, except while actu
Reversed.