GEICO v. Lewis

GEICO v. Lewis: Michigan’s Higher Liability Limits Do Not Automatically Apply to a Visiting Out-of-State Vehicle

By Pratheep Sevanthinathan, Esq. The Seva Law Firm

Case: GEICO General Insurance Company v. Chelsea Lewis, No. 374761 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2026) (Published)

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals

Panel: M. J. Kelly, P.J., and O’Brien and Lievens, JJ.

Decision: Affirmed — Per Curiam

Lower Court: Macomb Circuit Court, Case No. 2024-003107-CZ

Read the full opinion here

1. Introduction

In a published decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that Michigan’s default bodily-injury liability limits do not automatically reform an automobile policy issued in another state for a vehicle registered and principally garaged there. In GEICO General Insurance Company v. Lewis, the Court concluded that a New York GEICO policy retained its stated limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence after the insured vehicle was involved in a Michigan collision. The decision turns on the territorial limits written into MCL 500.3009 and the separate rule governing nonresident vehicles operated in Michigan for more than 30 aggregate days in a calendar year.

2. Facts

Chelsea Lewis alleged that she was injured when Hafiz Kobir ran a red light and struck her vehicle. Kobir was a New York resident, his vehicle was registered and principally garaged in New York, and GEICO had issued his automobile policy in New York. The policy provided bodily-injury liability limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence.

Lewis sued Kobir and another defendant for negligence. GEICO then filed a declaratory action asking the Macomb Circuit Court to confirm the applicable policy limits. Lewis argued that the policy should instead provide Michigan’s default limits of $250,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence.

Her argument relied on an out-of-state-insurance provision in the GEICO policy. That provision increased coverage, when the vehicle was operated outside New York, to the extent required of out-of-state motorists by local law. Lewis maintained that MCL 500.3009 supplied the relevant Michigan requirement and therefore increased GEICO’s limits. The circuit court disagreed and granted summary disposition to GEICO.

3. Issues

The principal issue was whether MCL 500.3009 required a New York automobile policy covering a New York vehicle to provide Michigan’s $250,000/$500,000 default liability limits merely because the collision occurred in Michigan.

The Court also considered whether MCL 500.3102 required Michigan no-fault coverage for the nonresident vehicle and thereby triggered the higher limits through the policy’s out-of-state coverage clause.

4. Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for GEICO and held that the policy’s stated $25,000/$50,000 limits controlled.

First, the Court examined the plain language of MCL 500.3009. The statute governs an automobile liability policy delivered or issued for delivery in Michigan with respect to a vehicle registered or principally garaged in Michigan. Kobir’s policy met none of those territorial conditions: it was issued in New York for a vehicle registered and principally garaged in New York. Therefore, MCL 500.3009 did not require GEICO to increase the limits.

The Court distinguished decisions addressing Michigan-issued policies, including Progressive Marathon Insurance Company v. Espinoza-Solis, Progressive Marathon Insurance Company v. Pena, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Estate of Fortin. Those decisions establish that $250,000/$500,000 are the default limits for policies within MCL 500.3009 unless the insured properly elects lower limits. They did not decide whether the statute applies to an out-of-state policy and vehicle.

Second, the Court addressed MCL 500.3102(1). That provision requires a nonresident owner or registrant to maintain Michigan no-fault security when the out-of-state vehicle is operated in Michigan for more than 30 aggregate days in a calendar year. It was undisputed that Kobir’s vehicle did not meet that threshold. Consequently, MCL 500.3102 did not impose Michigan no-fault coverage or liability limits either.

Because neither statute required greater coverage, the GEICO policy’s contractual limits remained enforceable. Its out-of-state-insurance clause increased coverage only when local law required an increase, and Michigan law imposed no such requirement on these facts.

5. Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for GEICO. Although the accident occurred in Michigan, that fact alone did not transform a New York policy covering a New York vehicle into a Michigan policy. The applicable bodily-injury liability limits remained $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence.

Because the opinion is published, it provides binding guidance to Michigan trial courts concerning MCL 500.3009’s application to visiting out-of-state vehicles. The decision makes the place of policy issuance, vehicle registration, principal garaging, and duration of Michigan operation critical coverage facts.

6. What Does This Mean for Our Clients?

A Michigan crash does not guarantee Michigan liability limits. An injured person may face the lower limits permitted by the state where the at-fault driver’s policy was issued.

The details of the out-of-state vehicle matter. Attorneys should promptly investigate where the policy was delivered, where the vehicle was registered and principally garaged, and how many days it was operated in Michigan during the calendar year. A vehicle operated here for more than 30 aggregate days may trigger a different result under MCL 500.3102.

Policy language still matters. Out-of-state coverage clauses can increase limits, but only when Michigan law actually requires the visiting motorist to carry greater coverage. They do not independently create Michigan’s default limits.

Other recovery sources should be investigated immediately. When an at-fault driver carries low out-of-state limits, uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage, other liable parties, and all potentially applicable policies become especially important.

If you were injured in a Michigan crash involving an out-of-state driver, contact The Seva Law Firm. We can investigate every available policy and source of recovery and explain how Michigan’s no-fault and liability laws apply to your claim.

Pratheep Sevanthinathan is the owner and managing attorney of The Seva Law Firm, located at 100 W. Big Beaver Rd, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084. He can be reached at (248) 385-5704.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Michigan’s higher auto liability limits do not automatically apply just because a crash happens here.

In the published decision GEICO General Insurance Company v. Lewis, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a New York policy covering a vehicle registered and principally garaged in New York kept its stated limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence—even though the collision occurred in Michigan.

Michigan law generally sets default bodily-injury limits of $250,000/$500,000 for policies issued in Michigan for vehicles registered or principally garaged here. Those requirements did not apply to this New York policy. The Court also found that Michigan’s rule for nonresident vehicles did not change the result because the vehicle had not been operated in Michigan for more than 30 aggregate days that year.

The takeaway: after a collision with an out-of-state driver, the location of the crash is only one piece of the coverage analysis. Where the policy was issued, where the vehicle is registered and garaged, and how long it has operated in Michigan can determine the available limits. Low limits also make it critical to investigate underinsured motorist coverage and every other source of recovery.

Injured by an out-of-state driver in Michigan? Contact The Seva Law Firm at (248) 385-5704 to discuss your options.