Navigate Up
Sign In

155784 - Matthew Dye v Esurance Property & Casualty Ins Co

Matthew Dye, by his Guardian, Siporin & Associates, Inc.,

 

Robert E. Logeman

 

Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, ,

 

v

(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)

 

 

(Washtenaw – Connors, T.)

 

Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Company,

 

 

 

Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff,

 

and

 

 

Geico Indemnity Company,

Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Appellee,

Drew W. Broaddus

 

 

And

 

 

Priority Health and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

Summary

Plaintiff Matthew Dye was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought no-fault personal protection insurance (“PIP”) benefits.  The car plaintiff was driving at the time of the accident was titled in his name, but plaintiff’s father had obtained insurance for the vehicle from defendant Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Company.  Esurance claims that defendant GEICO Indemnity Company is the higher priority insurer, but GEICO denies liability based on Barnes v Farmers Ins Exch, 308 Mich App 1 (2014), which held that “under the plain language of MCL 500.3113(b), when none of the owners maintains the requisite coverage, no owner may recover PIP benefits.”  The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Esurance and plaintiff against GEICO, but the Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court has granted plaintiff’s cross-application for leave to appeal to address whether an owner or registrant of a motor vehicle involved in an accident may be entitled to PIP benefits for accidental bodily injury where no owner or registrant of the motor vehicle maintains security for payment of benefits under personal protection insurance.​