Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Underhill v. Safeco Insurance
Citations: 255 N.W.2d 349; 76 Mich. App. 13; 1976 Mich. App. LEXIS 649Docket: Docket 25868
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals; May 21, 1976; Michigan; State Appellate Court
Defendant Safeco Insurance Company appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of plaintiff Underhill following a motorcycle-automobile accident on September 15, 1974. Underhill sustained serious injuries and incurred significant medical expenses and lost income. At the time of the accident, Underhill had a motorcycle liability policy that excluded no-fault benefits, while the automobile involved was insured under a no-fault policy by Safeco, which denied Underhill's claim on the grounds that no-fault statutes do not cover motorcyclists. The Michigan Court of Appeals examined whether the term "not an occupant of a motor vehicle" includes motorcycle operators entitled to personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits from the insurer of the automobile involved in the accident. The court referenced MCLA 500.3115(1) and MCLA 500.3101(2), establishing that a motorcycle is not classified as a "motor vehicle" under the no-fault act, which requires vehicles to have more than two wheels. Consequently, Underhill was not obligated to maintain security for PIP benefits, while the owner of the four-wheeled vehicle was. Furthermore, the court ruled that Underhill was not excluded from receiving benefits under MCLA 500.3113, as he was not the owner of the motor vehicle involved. MCLA 500.3115 mandates that those injured while not occupying a motor vehicle should first seek PIP benefits from the insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident, which Underhill did. Lastly, Safeco's argument asserting the exclusion of motorcycles from no-fault benefits as a violation of equal protection was dismissed, referencing the precedent set in Shavers v Attorney General. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling, entitling Underhill to the benefits under Safeco's policy and awarding him interest at 12% on his claim.