I noticed an old Jeep the other day that was parked on a trail with its doors removed, a fire extinguisher rolling around, holes in the floor, seats torn out and huge wheels.
It got me thinking. At what point does that Jeep stop becoming a “motor vehicle” under Michigan’s no-fault act? Well, coincidentally, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue where a Jeep was described as follows:
“[A]t the time of the accident, the head lights, tail lights, turn signals, speedometer, and odometer on the Jeep were not ‘hooked up.’ The original metal shell had been removed from the Jeep and replaced with a fiberglass shell and, except for the steering column, ignition, and brakes, the wiring was not reconnected. In addition, the Jeep did not have doors or a rearview mirror. Finally, the Jeep was equipped with a roll bar and had expensive tires that were impractical for driving on a paved road because the tires would have been torn up and provided a ‘bumpy’ ride.”
The court ultimately held that the Jeep that was not a “motor vehicle” under MCL 500.3101(2)(e) and was in fact an off-road vehicle. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits.
The facts of each particular case are essential. That is why adjusters should make every effort to take a detailed statement from claimants because in the end, if it’s on a trail and it looks like the Jeep described above, you may not even be dealing with a motor vehicle.
Add a comment
Subscribe
RSSTopics
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- No Fault Liability
- Transportation
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
- Trucking Liability
- Auto Liability
- Appellate Law
- Insurance
- Fraud Activity
- insurance policy
- Civil Litigation
- Sanctions
- Premises Liability
- Coronavirus
- COVID-19
- Cargo Liability
- Driver Exclusion
- Judicial Estoppel
- Retail Liability
- Bankruptcy
- Risk Management
- Governmental Immunity
- Public Policy
- Environmental Legislation
- Environmental Regulation
- Medicare Issues
Recent Updates
- Fee Schedule Applies to Third-Party Claims for Excess Allowable Expenses
- Appellate Court Rules Insured Entitled to Unlimited Attendant Care Benefits
- Case Update: Appellate Court Updates Recent Decision to Published Status, Expanding Definition of ‘Unlawful’ Under Michigan PIP Law
- Having a ‘Cowboy Attitude' About No-Fault Insurance Limits Could Cost You
- How well do you Know Your Policyholders? Recent Appellate Case Encourages Full Discovery of Potential Rescission During Litigation
- Published Opinion Warns Insurers that Medical Claims can Survive MCL 500.3145 Indefinitely Without an Appropriate Denial
- Michigan Court of Appeals Outlines Several Important Defenses in Family Member Provided Attendant Care Cases
- Michigan Appellate Courts Help Define ‘Sudden Emergency’ in Motor Vehicle Liability Cases
- Post-Judgement Collection Techniques for Insurers
- Are Case Evaluation Sanctions Gone Baby, Gone?