BROADCASTS.com

b'

Pedestrian\'s No Fault Claim Belongs to Insurer Assigned  Insurers are professional litigants. 

They are sued and sue often.  Usually they avoid suing other insurer 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, 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.  

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.