GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY V BELINDA GOLDSTEIN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 20, 2011
Plaintiff-Counter DefendantAppellee,
v
No. 288418
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2006-073586-NF
BELINDA GOLDSTEIN,
Defendant-Counter Plaintiff/ThirdParty-Appellee,
and
DANIEL LEON,
Defendant-Counter PlaintiffAppellee,
and
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
ON REMAND
Before: WILDER, P.J., and O’CONNELL and TALBOT, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
These appeals come to us on remand from our Supreme Court for reconsideration in light
of the following order:
. . . in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE part III (B) of the Court of
Appeals opinion and REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for
consideration of the issue whether, because the titled owner of the vehicle
involved in the accident maintained an automobile insurance policy on the vehicle
issued by plaintiff Geico, and Geico, in turn, filed the written certification with
-1-
the State of Michigan required under MCL 500.3163(1), the resulting no-fault
coverage satisfied the condition for eligibility for personal protection insurance
benefits specified by MCL 500.3113(b), even if defendant Goldstein was an
‘owner’ of the vehicle within the meaning of MCL 500.3101(h)(i), thereby
obviating any need for the further proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals.
After careful review of our opinion [unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of
Appeals, issued January 19, 2010, Docket No. 288418], we agree with the Supreme Court’s
suggestion that Goldstein's status as an "owner" of the vehicle under MCL 500.3101(h)(1) is
immaterial. If she was an "owner" and was required to register the vehicle, the security required
by MCL 500.3101 was in effect by virtue of Horwitz's policy with Geico. Thus, MCL
500.3113(b) would not bar her recovery. If she was not an "owner" or if she was an "owner" but
was not required to register the vehicle, no security would be required by section 500.3101 and
accordingly, section 500.3113(b) would not bar her recovery. Thus, as we found in our opinion,
"Geico is subject to the Michigan personal and property insurance system, the Acclaim was
insured under a Geico policy, [] the owner of the Acclaim was an out-of-state resident, [and
therefore] MCL 500.3163 requires Geico to provide no-fault benefits in this case.”
We VACATE part III (B) of our prior opinion and adopt and reaffirm the balance of the
opinion.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
