-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

MARCUS SNYDER, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

January 17, 2017 

v No. 329779 

Oakland Circuit Court 

MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN, LC No. 2014-142743-NI 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: TALBOT, C.J., and JANSEN and HOEKSTRA, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant appeals by leave granted1 the order denying its motion for summary 

disposition. We reverse and remand for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor 

of defendant. 

 This case arises from injuries sustained by plaintiff when he was hit by a “mud bog” 

operated by Jason Boyd (Jason). The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the mud bog 

constituted a “motor vehicle” under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq. Defendant argues 

that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) 

because there was no genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether the mud bog 

constituted a motor vehicle as defined in the no-fault act, and defendant was entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law. We agree. 

 We review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. Bahri v 

IDS Prop Cas Ins Co, 308 Mich App 420, 423; 864 NW2d 609 (2014). “The motion for 

summary disposition ‘tests the factual support for a claim and should be granted if there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). “ ‘A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record, giving 

the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which 

reasonable minds might differ.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). When reviewing a decision on a motion 

for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), we examine “ ‘affidavits, pleadings, 

 

1 Snyder v Mich Assigned Claims Plan, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered 

December 29, 2015 (Docket No. 329779). 
-2- 

depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence submitted by the parties in the light 

most favorable to the party opposing the motion.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). 

 “Under personal protection insurance an insurer is liable to pay benefits for accidental 

bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a 

motor vehicle . . . .” MCL 500.3105(1). The no-fault act defines the term “motor vehicle” as 

follows: 

 “Motor vehicle” means a vehicle, including a trailer, that is operated or 

designed for operation on a public highway by power other than muscular power 

and has more than 2 wheels. Motor vehicle does not include any of the following: 

 (i) A motorcycle. 

 (ii) A moped. 

 (iii) A farm tractor or other implement of husbandry that is not subject to 

the registration requirements of the Michigan vehicle code under section 216 of 

the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.216. 

 (iv) An ORV. 

 (v) A golf cart. 

 (vi) A power-driven mobility device. 

 (vii) A commercial quadricycle. [MCL 500.3101(2)(h).] 

An off-road vehicle, or ORV, is defined as follows: 

 “ORV” means a motor-driven recreation vehicle designed for off-road use 

and capable of cross-country travel without benefit of road or trail, on or 

immediately over land, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain. 

ORV includes, but is not limited to, a multitrack or multiwheel drive vehicle, a 

motorcycle or related 2-wheel, 3-wheel, or 4-wheel vehicle, an amphibious 

machine, a ground effect air cushion vehicle, an ATV as defined in [MCL 

324.81101], or other means of transportation deriving motive power from a 

source other than muscle or wind. ORV does not include a vehicle described in 

this subdivision that is registered for use upon a public highway and has the 

security described in [MCL 500.3101 or MCL 500.3103] in effect. [MCL 

500.3101(2)(j).] 

 In this case, the evidence in the record establishes that the mud bog was never operated 

on a public highway. Additionally, the undisputed evidence in the record establishes that the 

mud bog was not designed for operation on a public highway. In Apperson v Citizens Mut Ins 

Co, 130 Mich App 799, 800; 344 NW2d 812 (1983), the plaintiff was injured when a wheel fell 

off a vehicle during a “street stock” car race and hit him. The issue presented in the case was 

whether the “street stock” vehicle was a motor vehicle within the meaning of the no-fault act. Id. 
-3- 

With regard to whether the vehicle that hit the plaintiff was operated or designed for operation 

upon a public highway, this Court outlined the various changes made to vehicles to convert them 

into “street stock” racing cars. Id. at 801. The affidavits submitted by the defendant established 

that the “street stock” vehicles were required to have all outside lights and all glass except the 

windshield removed, were required to be equipped with only one seat, and were required to have 

a full roll cage. Id. at 801-802. The cars also lacked windshield wipers, turn signals, outside 

mirrors, and exhaust pipes. Id. This Court concluded, “We believe it is entirely logical that a 

vehicle which was originally designed for use upon public highways can be modified to such a 

degree that it loses its status as a ‘motor vehicle’ . . . .” Id. This Court held that the “street 

stock” car that injured the plaintiff was not designed for use on a public highway and did not 

constitute a motor vehicle. Id. 

 Recently, in Gividen v Bristol West Ins Co, 305 Mich App 639, 644; 854 NW2d 200 

(2014), this Court concluded that a modified 1976 Jeep did not constitute a motor vehicle under 

the no-fault act. In Gividen, the plaintiff was driving an off-road vehicle when it collided with a 

modified 1976 Jeep driven by a nonparty to the lawsuit. Id. at 641. The plaintiff was not 

covered by a no-fault insurance policy, and the Jeep was covered by an insurance policy 

purchased in Texas. Id. This Court addressed the issue whether the Jeep was a motor vehicle 

under the no-fault act. Id. at 642. This Court stated that the undisputed evidence in the case 

established that the modifications made to the Jeep converted the Jeep into an off-road vehicle. 

Id. at 643. This Court outlined the modifications made to the Jeep: 

 [The driver of the Jeep] testified that at the time of the accident, the 

headlights, taillights, 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 had not been 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. [Id.] 

This Court concluded that “[b]ecause this evidence established that the Jeep had been modified 

to the extent that it was no longer ‘designed for operation upon a public highway,’ the Jeep did 

not qualify as a ‘motor vehicle’ under the no-fault act at the time of the accident.” Id. (citations 

omitted). Therefore, there was no genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether the Jeep 

was a motor vehicle, and the plaintiff was not entitled to personal protection insurance (PIP) 

benefits under the no-fault act. Id. at 644. 

 The modifications made to the vehicle in this case were as extensive as the changes made 

to the vehicles in Apperson and Gividen. Jason and his wife, Jessica Boyd, provided deposition 

testimony outlining the modifications that were made to the vehicle.2

 While the mud bog still 

 

2

 Plaintiff contends that the differences in the testimony of Jason and Jessica establish a genuine 

issue of material fact with regard to the modifications made to the mud bog. However, Jason and 

Jessica provided consistent testimony regarding the modifications, and their testimony differed 
-4- 

had doors and windows, the vehicle lacked headlights, working taillights, side-view mirrors, turn 

signals, a speedometer, an odometer, bumpers, a horn, and an exhaust system. Jason removed 

the original frame and replaced it with a larger frame from a farm truck. Jason also replaced the 

engine and transmission. He moved the radiator, fan, and battery to the back of the vehicle. The 

wiring was removed and replaced. The mud bog lacked an alternator, and Jason explained that 

the battery could only last one hour, at most, before it would drain. A protective bar was 

installed over the front grille of the vehicle, and Plexiglas and metal bars were installed on the 

back of the vehicle. In addition, Jason installed five-point racing harnesses in the front seats. 

 Jason also installed 40-inch “TSL Super Swamper Bogger” tires on the vehicle. Jason 

explained that the tires were not “road legal,” and added that “if you drove them on the road it 

would shake you out of the vehicle.” The gas tank was also replaced with a fuel cell that 

required racing fuel, and Jason explained that the mud bog “only gets probably a mile and a half 

to the gallon.” Further, Jason welded the axles of the vehicle to permit both rear tires to spin at 

the same time. He explained that it was not safe to drive the vehicle on the road after he welded 

the axles together because “it could lock your gears up, your rear end up, and the next thing you 

know you’re coming to a stop.” Therefore, the undisputed evidence in the record establishes that 

the mud bog lacked basic safety features and that the changes made to the vehicle rendered it 

dangerous, if not impossible, to drive on a roadway. Accordingly, the vehicle was modified to 

such a degree that it was no longer designed for operation on a public highway. See MCL 

500.3101(2)(h). 

 Instead, the modifications made to the vehicle rendered it an off-road vehicle. The 

parties do not dispute that the mud bog was motorized. Jason explained that a mud bog is “an 

off-road vehicle that people will go and play in the mud with, in big mud holes.” Thus, the mud 

bog was a motor-driven recreation vehicle designed for off-road use in a mud pit. The mud bog 

was also capable of cross-country travel over natural terrain. Further, the vehicle lacked 

registration for use upon a public highway and lacked no-fault insurance. Therefore, the mud 

bog fell within the definition of an off-road vehicle and was excluded from the definition of a 

motor vehicle. See MCL 500.3101(2)(h) and (j).3

 Therefore, the vehicle did not constitute a 

motor vehicle, and plaintiff is not entitled to PIP benefits for the injuries he sustained during the 

accident. See Gividen, 305 Mich App at 644. 

 

 

only with regard to the irrelevant issues of the origin of the mud bog parts and the sale of the 

mud bog following the incident. Therefore, plaintiff’s contention is without merit. 

3

 We also reject plaintiff’s argument that Jason’s criminal conviction for operating a motor 

vehicle while intoxicated causing serious injury, MCL 257.625(5)(a), indicates that the mud bog 

constituted a motor vehicle under the no-fault act. Jason’s criminal conviction under the 

Michigan Vehicle Code MCL 257.1 et seq., has no bearing on the issue whether the mud bog 

was a motor vehicle as defined in the no-fault act. 
-5- 

 Reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of 

defendant. We do not retain jurisdiction. 

/s/ Michael J. Talbot 

/s/ Kathleen Jansen 

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra