Matthew Dye v. Esurance Property & Casualty Ins Co

Michigan Court of Appeals

Matthew Dye v. Esurance Property & Casualty Ins Co

DecidedApril 4, 2017

Docket330308

StatusUnpublished

This text of Matthew Dye v. Esurance Property & Casualty Ins Co (Matthew Dye v. Esurance Property & Casualty Ins Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthew Dye v. Esurance Property & Casualty Ins Co, (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

MATTHEW DYE, by his Guardian, SIPORIN & UNPUBLISHED ASSOCIATES, INC., April 4, 2017

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 330308 Washtenaw Circuit Court ESURANCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY LC No. 14-000516-NF INSURANCE COMPANY and PRIORITY HEALTH,

Defendants/Cross- Plaintiffs/Appellees,

and

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendant/Cross- Defendant/Appellant,

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN,

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: BECKERING, P.J., and O’CONNELL and BORRELLO, JJ.

O’CONNELL, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

For the reasons stated by the majority, I concur with the majority opinion that Paul Dye is not a “registrant” of the vehicle for purposes of MCL 500.3101(1). I also concur with the majority opinion that the trial court erred in granting Esurance’s motion for summary disposition on its cross-claim for enforcement of the alleged settlement agreement. I respectfully dissent as to the majority’s conclusion that Paul Dye may qualify as an owner of this vehicle. Based upon these set of facts, Matthew Dye is both the registrant and owner of this vehicle.

-1- I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

MATTHEW DYE, by his Guardian, SIPORIN & UNPUBLISHED ASSOCIATES, INC., April 4, 2017

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 330308 Washtenaw Circuit Court ESURANCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY LC No. 14-000516-NF INSURANCE COMPANY and PRIORITY HEALTH,

Defendants/Cross- Plaintiffs/Appellees,

and

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendant/Cross- Defendant/Appellant,

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN,

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: BECKERING, P.J., and O’CONNELL and BORRELLO, JJ.

O’CONNELL, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

For the reasons stated by the majority, I concur with the majority opinion that Paul Dye is not a “registrant” of the vehicle for purposes of MCL 500.3101(1). I also concur with the majority opinion that the trial court erred in granting Esurance’s motion for summary disposition on its cross-claim for enforcement of the alleged settlement agreement. I respectfully dissent as to the majority’s conclusion that Paul Dye may qualify as an owner of this vehicle. Based upon these set of facts, Matthew Dye is both the registrant and owner of this vehicle.

-1- I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Matthew Dye v. Esurance Property & Casualty Ins Co, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-dye-v-esurance-property-casualty-ins-co-michctapp-2017.