 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morris v. Allstate Insurance Co.6/19/1998
Muskegon Circuit Court
LC No. 93-030587-CK
Plaintiff, an injured passenger, filed suit for no-fault benefits arising out of a September 1992 collision between two off-road recreational vehicles (ORV's). Defendant moved for summary Disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), claiming that the road upon which the collision occurred was not a public highway and that plaintiff's injuries did not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. On appeal, the parties raise the same legal questions as those presented to the trial court for summary Disposition based on stipulated facts.
The trial court granted summary Disposition to plaintiff on its finding that the collision had, in fact, occurred on a public highway. The court also denied defendant's motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against the drivers to recoup the benefits defendant has paid.
Defendant appeals by right. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
I.
We review a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo, examining the entire record and construing all reasonable inferences arising from the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Henderson v State Farm Fire & Casualty Co, 225 Mich App 703, 708-709; 572 NW2d 216 (1997); Pinckney Community Schools v Continental Casualty Co, 213 Mich App 521, 525; 540 NW2d 748 (1995). A motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) may be granted when, except with regard to the amount of damages, no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Henderson, supra. Stated otherwise, we ask whether a record might be developed that leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds could differ. Id. Critically, the court may not make factual findings or weigh witness credibility in deciding a motion for summary Disposition. Id.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding (1) that the vehicles involved in the accident were motor vehicles and (2) that the accident occurred on a public highway. According to defendant, the parties in essence stipulated that the road was not a public highway based upon the "uncontroverted" affidavit of Michael Smith, the engineer-manager of the local road commission, where he averred that the road commission does not consider the road in question to be a public highway. The no-fault act defines motor vehicle, in pertinent part, as a vehicle "operated or designed for operation upon a public highway." MCL 500.3101(2)(e); MSA 24.13101(2)(e) (emphasis added). The parties stipulated that the ORV's "were not designed for operation upon the public highway and were not titled and/or registered under the Michigan vehicle code." Whether the ORV's were "motor vehicles" within the meaning of MCL 500.3101(2)(e); MSA 24.13101(2)(e) therefore depends upon whether they were being operated upon a "public highway" at the time of the accident.
Although the parties stipulated to certain facts, we must reiterate that this case was not tried. Rather, defendant moved the court for summary Disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). The court not only denied defendant's motion but also granted partial summary Disposition to plaintiff in that she was "entitled to unspecified No-Fault benefits from defendant." In denying defendant's motion, the trial court made the following findings, in pertinent part:
Paragraph 5 of the "Stipulation of Facts" establishes that plaintiff's vehicle was not designed for operation upon a public highway. However, the Court must still determine whether or not the accident took place while the vehicles were operated on
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|