Pedestrian’s No Fault Claim Belongs to Insurer Assigned
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gHJjWNGU and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gzxqCCh2 and at https://lnkd.in/g5q3HDwj and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4350 posts.
Insurers are professional litigants. They are sued and sue often. Usually they avoid suing other insurers for fear of making precedents that will effect the entire industry. In Beth Bracy, Plaintiff, and ZMC Pharmacy, LLC, Riverview Macomb Home & Attendant Care, and Michigan Spine and Pain, Intervening Plaintiffs v. Yolanda Yvette Nichols, Defendant, and Farmers Insurance Exchange, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant, and GEICO Indemnity Company, Defendant/Cross-Defendant-Appellee, No. 359397, the Court of Appeals of Michigan (October 13, 2022) the insurers involved should have avoided the litigation against each other and voluntarily resolved the dispute with the injured and each other.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 7, 2012, Geico issued an automobile insurance policy to Marcus Nichols (Marcus). Three years later, Marcus added a 1993 Chevrolet Lumina owned by his mother, defendant, Yolanda Nichols (Nichols), to the policy. Nichols was identified as a driver on the policy, but she was not a named insured on the policy. Nichols was driving the Lumina when she was involved in an automobile accident with plaintiff, Beth Bracy, a pedestrian, on August 23, 2014. Bracy sought personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under the Michigan no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP). MACP assigned the claim to Farmers, and Farmers paid Bracy PIP benefits for her accident-related injuries.
Bracy filed a complaint against Farmers and Nichols, alleging bodily injury liability against Nichols, and alleging Farmers had unreasonably and unlawfully refused to pay her PIP benefits in accordance with the no-fault act. Farmers filed a third-party complaint against Geico for reimbursement under MCL 500.3172. Later, Farmers sought summary disposition against Geico, contending Geico was highest in priority for Bracy’s benefits. Geico also filed a motion for summary disposition against Farmers, arguing that Farmers was highest in priority for Bracy’s benefits. The trial court granted Farmers’ motion.
Geico appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeal which remanded to the trial court for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of Geico “because GEICO was not the insurer of the owner, registrant, or operator of the Lumina and, therefore, had no obligation to pay Bracy’s PIP benefits under MCL 500.3115(1).”
NO-FAULT COVERAGE
Farmers contended that Nichols’ vehicle was insured under Marcus’s Geico automobile insurance policy, and thus, Bracy was entitled to recover no-fault benefits under that policy.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
An uninsured pedestrian who suffers accidental bodily injury must seek PIP benefits from insurers in the following order of priority:
(a) Insurers of owners or registrants of motor vehicles involved in the accident.
(b) Insurers of operators of motor vehicles involved in the accident.
When no such insurer exists, the uninsured pedestrian may seek PIP benefits through the MACP.
In this case, the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition to Geico because Geico is not the insurer of the owner, registrant, or operator of the Lumina, and therefore, was not obligated to pay Bracy’s PIP benefits under MCL 500.3115(1).
In this case, it is undisputed that Marcus was neither the owner nor registrant of the Lumina; thus, the Lumina was not an auto for which he was “required to maintain security under Chapter 31 of the Michigan Insurance Code[.]” Accordingly, Bracy was not an “eligible injured person” under the terms of the Geico policy.
The named insured must have an “insurable interest” to support the existence of a valid policy. An insurable interest in property is broadly defined as being present when the person has an interest in property, as to the existence of which the person will gain benefits, or as to the destruction of which the person will suffer loss.
Marcus had no insurable interest in the Lumina because the Lumina was solely owned and operated by Nichols. And there was neither evidence that Marcus had use of the Lumina such as to be considered an owner under MCL 500.3101, nor that he intended to acquire the vehicle. The Lumina’s existence did not afford Marcus any benefits, and the destruction of the Lumina would not have caused him any loss.
Geico argued that the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in its favor was also proper because the insurance policy was void in light of Marcus’s misrepresentations in obtaining that policy for a vehicle in which he had no insurable interest.
The trial court dismissed Geico’s misrepresentation argument as moot because it was granting Geico’s motion for summary disposition “on the basis of priority” The argument remains moot on appeal for the same reason.
As a general rule, an appellate court will not decide moot issues.
ZALMA OPINION
Why this litigation between insurers took place is difficult to comprehend. Farmers was assigned by the state under the MCAP to provide benefits to the injured pedestrian and it did so, as assigned. Then it claimed Geico was obligated to pay the benefits even though it did not have an obligation to do so and the trial court and Court of Appeal agreed. The lawyers fees and time of the court could have easily avoided by the two insurers working together to resolve their differences, especially after they lost twice.
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com
and [email protected] and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
No alt text provided for this image
Now available Barry Zalma’s newest book, The Tort of Bad Faith, and “How to Acquire, Understand, and Make a Successful Claim on a Commercial Property Insurance Policy: Information Needed for Individuals and Insurance Pros to Deal With Commercial Property Insurance” the New Books are now available as a Kindle book here, paperback here and as a hardcover here available at amazon.com.
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at
Zalma on Insurance
Insurance, insurance claims, insurance law, and insurance fraud .
By Barry Zalma
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library
Convicted Criminal Seeks to Compel Receiver to Protect his Assets
Post number 5291
See the video at and at and at https://www.zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
The Work of a Court Appointed Receiver is Constitutionally Protected
In Simon Semaan et al. v. Robert P. Mosier et al., G064385, California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division (February 6, 2026) the Court of Appeals applied the California anti-SLAPP statute which protects defendants from meritless lawsuits arising from constitutionally protected activities, including those performed in official capacities. The court also considered the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity, which shields court-appointed receivers from liability for discretionary acts performed within their official duties.
Facts
In September 2021, the State of California filed felony charges against Simon Semaan, alleging violations of Insurance Code section 11760(a) for making...
When There are Two Different Other Insurance Clauses They Eliminate Each Other and Both Insurers Owe Indemnity Equally
Post number 5289
In Great West Casualty Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co., and Conserv FS, Inc., and Timothy A. Brennan, as Administrator of the Estate of Pat- rick J. Brennan, deceased, Nos. 24-1258, 24-1259, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (February 11, 2026) the USCA was required to resolve a dispute that arose when a tractor-trailer operated by Robert D. Fisher (agent of Deerpass Farms Trucking, LLC-II) was involved in a side-impact collision with an SUV driven by Patrick J. Brennan, resulting in Brennan’s death.
Facts
Deerpass Trucking, an interstate motor carrier, leased the tractor from Deerpass Farms Services, LLC, and hauled cargo for Conserv FS, Inc. under a trailer interchange agreement. The tractor was insured by Great West Casualty Company with a $1 million policy limit, while the trailer was insured by Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company with a $2 million ...
Opiod Producer Seeks Indemnity from CGL Insurers
Post number 5288
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/guNhStN2, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gYqkk-n3 and at https://lnkd.in/g8U3ehuc, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurers Exclude Damages Due to Insured’s Products
In Matthew Dundon, As The Trustee Of The Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action No. 24-4221, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (February 10, 2026) Matthew Dundon, trustee of the Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust, sued multiple commercial general liability (CGL) insurers for coverage of opioid-related litigation involving Endo International PLC a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
KEY FACTS
Beginning as early as 2014, thousands of opioid suits were filed by governments, third parties, and individuals alleging harms tied to opioid manufacturing and marketing.
Bankruptcy & Settlements
Endo filed Chapter 11 in August 2022; before bankruptcy it ...
Passover for Americans
Posted on February 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
“The Passover Seder For Americans”
For more than 3,000 years Jewish fathers have told the story of the Exodus of the enslaved Jews from Egypt. Telling the story has been required of all Jewish fathers. Americans, who have lived in North America for more than 300 years have become Americans and many have lost the ability to read, write and understand the Hebrew language in which the story of Passover was first told in the Torah. Passover is one of the many holidays Jewish People celebrate to help them remember the importance of G_d in their lives. We see the animals, the oceans, the rivers, the mountains, the rain, sun, the planets, the stars, and the people and wonder how did all these wonderful things come into being. Jews believe the force we call G_d created the entire universe and everything in it. Jews feel G_d is all seeing and knowing and although we can’t see Him, He is everywhere and in everyone.We understand...
Passover for Americans
Posted on February 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/passover-americans-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-5vgkc.
“The Passover Seder For Americans”
For more than 3,000 years Jewish fathers have told the story of the Exodus of the enslaved Jews from Egypt. Telling the story has been required of all Jewish fathers. Americans, who have lived in North America for more than 300 years have become Americans and many have lostthe ability to read, write and understand the Hebrew language in which the story of Passover was first told in the Torah.
Passover is one of the many holidays Jewish People celebrate to help them remember the importance of G_d in their lives. We see the animals, the oceans, the rivers, the mountains, the rain, sun, the planets, the stars, and the people and ...
You Get What You Pay For – Less Coverage Means Lower Premium
Post number 5275
Posted on January 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
When Experts for Both Sides Agree That Two Causes Concur to Cause a Wall to Collapse Exclusion Applies
In Lido Hospitality, Inc. v. AIX Specialty Insurance Company, No. 1-24-1465, 2026 IL App (1st) 241465-U, Court of Appeals of Illinois (January 27, 2026) resolved the effect of an anti-concurrent cause exclusion to a loss with more than one cause.
Facts and Background
Lido Hospitality, Inc. operates the Lido Motel in Franklin Park, Illinois. In November 2020, a windstorm caused one of the motel’s brick veneer walls to collapse. At the time, Lido was insured under a policy issued by AIX Specialty Insurance Company which provided coverage for windstorm damage. However, the policy contained an exclusion for any loss or damage directly or indirectly resulting from ...
