Is a Mobility Scooter a Motor Vehicle?

As Seen in Thunder Road Magazine

 

 

 

 I recently read about a legal battle here in Michigan that has me shaking my head in disbelief. I would imagine most legal practitioners are following the case closely, as it has the potential to change the definition of what is a "motor vehicle", and in turn the rules regarding Personal Insurance Protection (PIP) coverage. 

 

Before we go any further, I want to make it clear that I am not directly involved in this case. I have not spoken to the client in question and do not have any information other than what has been published in the news. My comments are based solely on my opinions about the facts that have been made publicly available.

 

The story goes like this: a man, who has been paralyzed from the waist down since a workplace accident in 2004, was riding his motorized mobility scooter across the street in June of 2012. He was struck in the intersection by an SUV making a right turn. The SUV driver was determined to be at fault in the accident. Both the victim and the driver agree that the actual impact between the SUV and the scooter was minor; however, the scooter tipped and exacerbated several of the victim's previous injuries. 

 

According to the victim and his lawyer, being hit by the SUV affected his colostomy wound to the point that the colostomy had to be relocated. It also caused a torn scrotum, a neck and back injury, stomach hernias, and circulation problems to his legs. Before being struck by the SUV, the victim was relatively independent, able to get around by motorized wheelchair or scooter quite well. Since he was hit, the victim has required round-the-clock care and has not been able to do much of what he could do before it happened. In light of this, the over $2m in medical costs so far, and the fact that he now needs surgery which is estimated to cost upwards of $150,000, the victim filed a PIP claim with State Farm, the SUV driver's insurance company. 

 

This seems like a fairly straightforward situation: the driver of the SUV struck the victim - a pedestrian, according to police reports - while he was crossing the street on his mobility scooter, causing injury. State Farm should pay his medical costs, right? 

 

Instead, State Farm is claiming that they do not have to pay the victim's costs because he did not have PIP coverage for his mobility scooter, which they are claiming is a "motor vehicle" that he was driving on a public road. That's right: They are trying to claim that his scooter, essentially a motorized wheelchair, is a motor vehicle that needs PIP coverage to legally operate on the road. The backbone of their argument is the fact that Michigan's Insurance Code [MCL 500.3101(2)(e)] defines a motor vehicle as "a vehicle… operated or designed for operation upon a public highway by power other than muscular power which has more than two wheels." 

 

Is that a valid argument? In my opinion, it is not. While State Farm can try to claim that a motorized mobility scooter or electric wheelchair is a "motor vehicle", the Michigan Vehicle Code (MCL 257.33) is very clear: "Motor vehicle does not include an electric personal assistive mobility device" (emphasis mine). I think the obvious goal of State Farm in this case is to try to get out of paying benefits to a claimant who is clearly entitled to receive them. 

 

The bigger picture, however, is that if State Farm were to win this case, it would throw a legal curveball at everyone who uses a  motorized mobility scooter or electric wheelchair to get around. If the judge were to side with State Farm, it could change the definition of "motor vehicle", and force anyone who operates a motorized mobility scooter or electric wheelchair to purchase PIP coverage if they want to use them on any public roads. This would obviously benefit State Farm and other insurers who sell these types of policies. To me, this looks like a not-so-sneaky way to try to save money both by denying a deserving claim and by requiring everyone using a mobility scooter or electric wheelchair to pay up. 

 

While I do not think that State Farm will be successful in their argument, this case is one of several across the country that bear watching closely. As the population in the United States ages, it is safe to assume that motorized mobility scooters and electric wheelchairs will gain popularity over the next decades, and legal challenges like this one could impact many people if it were to succeed. 

 

To see one of the articles about this particular case, visit http://bit.ly/VcrtAc