MICHAEL FLOWERS V PROGRESSIVE MICHIGAN INSURANCE CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MICHAEL FLOWERS,
UNPUBLISHED
July 20, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 291958
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2007-087977-NF
PROGRESSIVE MICHIGAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and METER and OWENS, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for
summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant
to MCR 7.214(E).
The facts in this no-fault insurance case are not in dispute. On the day plaintiff was
injured, he was visiting the home of friends for a party. He did not own or insure any vehicle at
the time, and thus did not have his own no-fault policy. The party was held at a residence on
Lakepointe Drive, an unpaved, private road1 in Hamburg Township. While at the party, plaintiff
went for a ride with another partygoer, Charles Thompson, on a two-seat all-terrain vehicle
known as a “Rhino.” Thompson lost control of the vehicle, and plaintiff was badly injured as a
result.
Although Lakepointe Drive is considered a private road, it is not closed off or gated, and
the public is free to travel on it. The road is maintained pursuant to Hamburg Township’s
creation of a special assessment district (SAD), under which the Township contracts with a
private company for grading of the road and gravel for fill, and collects the money to pay the
contractor through a special assessment on the affected property owners’ winter tax bill. The
Township does not itself maintain this road or any other road; the Township owns no roadmaintenance equipment and does not have a road commission. Further, Livingston County’s
Road Commission does not maintain private roads.
1
Plaintiff states in his appellate brief that Lakepointe Drive “is a private road[.]”
-1-
Plaintiff filed a claim for no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) benefits against
defendant, Thompson’s mother’s automobile insurer. When the claim was denied, plaintiff filed
suit. Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that there
was no coverage because Lakepointe Drive was not publicly maintained and thus was not a
“highway” for purposes of Michigan’s no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq. After discovery, the
trial court agreed, finding that “the Township’s actions here are of a capitalist nature” and that
the road was therefore not publicly maintained and not a “highway.”
We review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for summary
disposition. Spiek v Dep’t of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998).
Statutory interpretation is a question of law that is also considered de novo on appeal. Detroit v
Ambassador Bridge Co, 481 Mich 29, 35; 748 NW2d 221 (2008).
Under the no-fault act, benefits are owing only when an accident involves a motor
vehicle. MCL 500.3105(1). The act’s definition of “motor vehicle” requires that the vehicle
either be designed for operation on a public highway or be operated on a public highway. MCL
500.3101(2)(e). The Rhino was not designed for safe operation on a public highway; it lacked
taillights, a registration plate, and brake lights, among other required equipment. Plaintiff agrees,
stating that the central issue, therefore, is whether Lakepointe Drive is considered a “highway.”
There is no definition of “public highway” in the no-fault act, but MCL 500.3101(2)(b) states
that the definition of “highway” to be applied is that provided in the Michigan Vehicle Code at
MCL 257.20. That statute requires a road to be both open to use by the public and publicly
maintained.
There is no evidence that Lakepointe Drive has ever been maintained by a public entity.
The Township has no jurisdiction over private roads. Instead, the property owners decide
whether to request a SAD, the property owners pay for the maintenance of the road, and a private
contractor does the work. Defendant provided depositions of the former Township clerk and the
current Township supervisor, both of whom explained that maintenance of private roads is up to
the individual property holders of land adjacent to the roads. The funds collected from those
property owners are used to pay for the private maintenance of the road; no other funds are used,
and the taxes collected under the SAD are not used for any other purpose. The maintenance is
not publicly funded, public equipment is not used, and public employees do not do the work. In
addition, under the express terms of the maintenance contract, the contractor is not an agent or
employee of the Township, but an independent contractor.
Moreover, the cases plaintiff relied on below are distinguishable and thus do not support
his argument. In one, Allstate Ins Co v Dep’t of Management & Budget, 259 Mich App 705, 709
n 3; 675 NW2d 857 (2003), the parties stipulated that the road was a public highway. In the
other, Morris v Allstate Ins Co, 230 Mich App 361, 366; 584 NW2d 340 (1998), the county road
commission did occasional maintenance and repair of the road.
In this case, while there is public involvement in the process, there is no public money,
personnel, or equipment involved in maintaining Lakepointe Drive. Accordingly, the road is not
publicly maintained, and the trial court correctly granted summary disposition to defendant.
-2-
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
