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
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Auto Liability
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Driver Exclusion
- insurance policy
- No Fault Liability
- Fraud Activity
- Trucking Liability
- Cargo Liability
- Risk Management
- Public Policy
- Governmental Immunity
- Environmental Legislation
- Environmental Regulation
- Medicare Issues
- Premises Liability
- Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association Slashes 2020-2021 Fee Assessments
- What the No-Fault Act Giveth the No-Fault Act can Taketh Away
- Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Vacationer’s PIP Claims for Fraud
- Court Reaffirms One Year Back Rule, Rejects Use of Consent to Treat Forms as Assignments
- Once Again, More Fees for Michigan Drivers
- Don't Tweet and Drive!
- Michigan Tells Motorists to Move Over for Emergency Personnel
- Injury at Gas Pump not Covered by Michigan No-Fault
- More Fees for Michigan Drivers
- Only Named Party May File a Direct Claim Against Carrier