Court Opinion

ID: 9535410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:49:08.531128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:14.708174
License: Public Domain

Reilly, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result. Once the plaintiff-appellee provided uncontroverted evidence that the vehicle involved in the accident was owned by a nonresident and not *717registered in Michigan, the burden of proof shifted to the defendant-appellant to show registration was not required under the no-fault act. MCL 500.3102; MSA 24.13102 must be interpreted to impose the burden on the nonresident owner or registrant of the vehicle which is not registered in Michigan to maintain records to support the claim that the vehicle had not been operated in Michigan for more than thirty days in the previous calendar year. To impose that burden of proof on the victim of an accident in which the nonregistered vehicle is involved would be ludicrous. Having failed to produce records or alternative proof, it is apparent that Associated Truck Lines cannot support its position that its vehicle was not operated in Michigan more than thirty days in the previous calendar year. Under these circumstances the trial court properly granted plaintiff summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10).