Where the moving party has produced evidence in support of the motion, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to establish that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. Accordingly, Robert avoids this latter exclusion only if, at the time of the accident, he was not the owner of the truck. The evidence of record includes indications from two persons concerning Robert's use of the truck in question. Deposition testimony from a defense witness indicates that Robert was a regular driver of the truck for longer than thirty days. However, Rita Ardt stated that Robert drove the car only a few times and then normally only for such minor purposes as having it washed, albeit over the space of more than thirty days.
Statutory interpretation is a question of law calling for de novo review.
The primary purpose of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. The statutory provisions of concern here operate to prevent users of motor vehicles from obtaining the benefits of personal protection insurance without carrying their own insurance through the expedient of keeping title to their vehicles in the names of family members. These indications imply that ownership follows from proprietary or possessory usage, as opposed to merely incidental usage under the direction or with the permission of another. However, the regular pattern of unsupervised usage to which the defense witness attested may well support a finding that Robert was an owner for purposes of the statute. Accordingly, there remains a genuine issue of material fact for resolution at trial, rendering summary disposition on this issue inappropriate.