Automobile insurance policy limits; MCL 500.3009(1) & (5); Minimum residual liability limits; Progressive Marathon Ins Co v Espinoza-Solis; Progressive Marathon Ins Co v Pena; State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Estate of Fortin; Out-of-state policy; Vehicle registered or principally garaged outside Michigan; Nonresident motor vehicle coverage; MCL 500.3102(1); MCL 500.3131(2); Husted v Dobbs; Policy terms; Meemic Ins Co v Fortson

The court held that defendant-insured’s (Kobir) out-of-state policy with plaintiff-insurer (GEICO) was not required to conform to Michigan’s $250,000/$500,000 default residual liability limits because MCL 500.3009 did not apply to a New York policy covering a New York-registered and principally garaged vehicle. After defendant-Lewis filed the underlying negligence action against Kobir and another defendant, GEICO filed this declaratory action seeking a ruling that Kobir’s New York policy limits were $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence. The trial court granted GEICO summary disposition. On appeal, the court held that the policy’s out-of-state-insurance provision did not increase coverage because it applied only to coverage “required of out-of-state motorists by local law,” and Michigan law required no increase on these facts. The court reasoned that MCL 500.3009 applies only to a policy “delivered or issued for delivery in this state” with respect to a motor vehicle “registered or principally garaged in this state,” while Kobir’s policy was issued in New York and his vehicle was registered and garaged there. It also rejected Lewis’s reliance on Michigan minimum-limit cases because they did not address whether an out-of-state policy covering an out-of-state vehicle must include Michigan’s default limits or an election of lower limits. The court further held that MCL 500.3102(1) did not mandate Michigan no-fault coverage because it applies only if the nonresident vehicle was operated in Michigan “for an aggregate of more than 30 days in any calendar year,” and it was undisputed that Kobir did not meet that threshold. Because neither statute mandated higher coverage, “the terms of his policy control,” leaving the $25,000/$50,000 policy limits in place. Affirmed.