RANDALL GAGE V JOSEPH MEDINA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RANDALL GAGE and CHRISTINE GAGE,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellants,
v
No. 190053
LC No. 90-004059-NI
ON REMAND
JOSEPH MEDIA and LISA OWENS,
Defendants,
and
CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Garnishee Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J, and Corrigan and White, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring).
I agree with the majority that Foley still owned the vehicle at the time of the accident. I concur
in the majority’s affirmance of the grant of summary disposition to Citizens because I conclude the Lilje
v Allstate Ins Co., 393 Mich 259; 224 NW2d 279 (1974), which has not been overruled, is
controlling. Although the Supreme Court’s order vacating the memorandum opinion of this Court and
remanding for reconsideration in light of Goins v Greenfield Jeep Eagle, Inc, 449 Mich 1; 534 NW2d
467 (1995), Citizens Ins Co of America v Federated Mutual Ins Co, 448 Mich 225; 531 NW2d
138 (1995), and Clevenger v Allstate Ins Co, 443 Mich 646; 505 NW2d (1993), might signal a
willingness to overrule Lilje, supra, none of these cases, each fully described in the majority opinion,
deals with the circumstances presented in Lilje, and none addresses the distinguishing feature and basis
for decision in Lilje – a policy of insurance which had not been issued in respect to a particular vehicle.
In Lilje, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved of the Court of Appeals’ analysis and its reliance on
Celina Mutual Ins Co v Preferred Risk Mutual Ins Co., 51 Mich App 99; 214 NW2d 704 (1974).
Because the Supreme Court has not overruled Lilje, and because, although I have carefully
reconsidered the case in light Goins, Citizens, and Clevenger, I conclude reconsideration as directed
-1
by the Supreme Court does not provide a basis for distinguishing Lilje, or Celina, expressly
disapproved by the Supreme Court in Lilje, I respectfully conclude that Lilje must be followed. On this
basis, I concur in the affirmance.
/s/ Helene N. White
-2
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.
