“Sand Tires ≠ Street Tires” – Sixth Circuit Clarifies that Off-Road ATVs Are Not “Motor Vehicles” for Auto-Policy or Michigan No-Fault Coverage

Introduction

Laurie Leitch’s summer ride on a Polaris RZR 1000 Turbo over Michigan’s Silver Lake Sand Dunes ended in catastrophic spinal injuries. When her insurer, LM General Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual), denied personal-injury protection (PIP) benefits, she sued for breach of contract and declaratory relief, arguing that the RZR qualified as an “auto” under her policy and as a “motor vehicle” under Michigan’s No-Fault Act. The district court granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Judges Batchelder, Clay, and Bloomekatz) affirmed in an unpublished opinion dated 20 August 2025.

The key issue: whether an ATV not designed for or operated on public roads can trigger automobile coverage that adopts Michigan’s statutory language. The court’s answer is a resounding “no,” reinforcing that off-road vehicles—even if registered, plated, or occasionally seen on pavement—remain outside the statutory and contractual definitions that govern no-fault benefits.

Summary of the Judgment

Design prong: The Polaris RZR lacked essential on-road safety equipment (turn signals, full windshield, mirrors, horn, differential, wipers) and was marketed by the manufacturer as an “off-road vehicle,” therefore it was not “designed for use on public roads.”
Operation prong: No record evidence showed that the RZR had ever been operated on a public highway; transporting it on a trailer did not suffice.
Expert testimony: The district court properly excluded plaintiff’s expert opinions—deeming them impermissible legal conclusions—and the Sixth Circuit found no abuse of discretion.
Procedural rulings: Denial of a sur-reply was, at most, harmless; the appellate court conducted de novo review and still found no triable issue of fact.
Outcome: Affirmance of summary judgment for Liberty Mutual on both contractual and statutory claims.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel leaned heavily on Michigan state decisions interpreting identical “operated or designed for operation on a public highway” language in the No-Fault Act. Three lines of authority are noteworthy:

Feature-oriented design test: Jones v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 403 N.W.2d 130 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987) and Apperson v. Citizens Mutual, 344 N.W.2d 812 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) treat absence of road-safety features as dispositive of design intent.
Primary-purpose approach: Wills v. State Farm, 468 N.W.2d 511 (Mich. 1991) holds snowmobiles outside no-fault coverage because their primary design is off-road. The Sixth Circuit rejected plaintiff’s reliance on West v. Dep’t of Natural Resources, 963 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. Ct. App. 2020), distinguishing the governmental-immunity context from insurance-coverage analysis.
Registration irrelevant: Coffey v. State Farm, 412 N.W.2d 281 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987) says registration status does not transform an otherwise non-qualifying vehicle into a “motor vehicle.” The court echoed this principle to dismiss arguments premised on the RZR’s New York plate.

Newer, unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals decisions (Johnson v. Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, 2024 WL 4508626 (Oct. 16 2024)) reinforce that lacking safety features makes on-road operation “dangerous, if not impossible.”

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The opinion tracks a two-step textual analysis that mirrors both policy language and § 500.3101(3)(i) of the No-Fault Act:

Design analysis. By cataloguing missing features and citing the manufacturer’s own off-road classification, the court concluded no reasonable juror could find an intent for on-road use. Sand-dune tires—unsuitable for pavement—supplied further corroboration.
Operation analysis. Even assuming ambiguity over “designed,” the court asked whether the RZR had ever been driven on a public road. Plaintiff produced no affirmative evidence. A stray deposition reference to a “Razor” accident on a dirt road was deemed too speculative to create a genuine dispute.

Importantly, the court avoided deciding whether operation must occur at the time of accident or merely at any time; because plaintiff lost under the broader reading she promoted, the panel left that doctrinal wrinkle for another day.

Procedurally, the court applied the familiar Daubert/Berry rule that experts may not opine on questions of law or ultimate liability, thereby upholding the exclusion of Lieutenant Cook’s statutory and “street-legal” conclusions.

3. Potential Impact

Clarifies insurer defenses. Carriers may more confidently deny PIP or MedPay claims arising from recreational off-road vehicles when either design or historic operation on public highways is absent.
Guides litigants on evidence. Plaintiffs must present concrete, admissible facts (photos, eyewitness testimony, maintenance logs) of on-road operation; mere registration or plating is insufficient.
Expert testimony boundaries. The decision re-emphasises that labelling a vehicle a “motor vehicle” or “street legal” is a legal determination reserved for the court.
Legislative implications. If coverage for ATVs is socially desirable, lawmakers—not courts—must amend Michigan’s No-Fault Act; until then, victims may need to look to health insurance or tort claims against negligent operators.
Persuasive authority outside Michigan. Although unpublished and non-precedential in the Sixth Circuit, the structured analysis will likely be cited in district courts confronting similar policy wording in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment: A procedural device ending a case before trial when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and one side is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Michigan No-Fault Act: A statute requiring vehicle owners and insurers to pay certain benefits without regard to fault, but only for injuries arising from “motor vehicles.”
Motor Vehicle vs. ORV: Under § 500.3101(3)(i), a “motor vehicle” must be designed or operated on public highways; off-road vehicles (ORVs) are expressly excluded regardless of wheel count.
Design vs. Operation Prongs: A vehicle qualifies if either it is built for highways (design) or has actually been driven there (operation). Both prongs failed here.
Legal Conclusion (Expert): Experts may explain mechanics, design, or industry standards but cannot announce what the law means or who wins under it.

Conclusion

Leitch v. White reinforces a straightforward, fact-driven proposition: vehicles engineered for dunes, trails, or pastures do not magically become “motor vehicles” merely by carrying a license plate or a hopeful rider. By parsing design features, manufacturer intent, and actual roadway use, the Sixth Circuit left no room for jury speculation and provided insurers and practitioners a clear checklist for future off-road coverage disputes. Unless Michigan revises its no-fault statute—or ATV manufacturers redesign their machines for genuine street compatibility—claimants injured in such vehicles must seek compensation outside the no-fault framework. The decision thus safeguards the doctrinal boundary between automotive and recreational risk, reminding courts and litigants alike that sand tires are not, and never will be, street tires.