Mr. Vukich nevertheless filed an insurance claim for Michigan personal-injury-protection ("PIP") benefits under Michigan's no-fault act.

GEICO Casualty denied the claim, reasoning that Mr. Vukich was ineligible for Michigan no-fault benefits because GEICO Casualty did not issue Michigan insurance policies given that it was neither authorized nor licensed to do business in Michigan.

Mr. Vukich sued GEICO Casualty, which moved for summary disposition.

The trial court denied GEICO Casualty's motion, holding that the cover page of Mr. Vukich's insurance contract, which listed four GEICO companies, created an ambiguity regarding which GEICO entity was Mr. Vukich's insurer.

GEICO appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred when it denied its motion for summary disposition because there was no question that Mr. Vukich's insurance contract was issued by GEICO Casualty, not any other GEICO company.

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court reversed.

In its decision, the appellate court explained that Mr. Vukich's out-of-state insurance policy did not provide for Michigan no-fault benefits and found that the corporate entity that issued Mr. Vukich's insurance policy was GEICO Casualty, which was neither authorized nor licensed to do business in Michigan.

The appellate court rejected Mr. Vukich's contention that the cover page of the insurance policy, which listed four separate GEICO companies, created an ambiguity regarding which GEICO entity insured Mr. Vukich.

The appellate court said that the first page of Mr. Vukich's insurance contract was a declaration certificate, which was written by a GEICO Casualty employee, and that the first sentence of the declaration certificate stated that its author was a claims-coverage underwriter for GEICO Casualty. The appellate court then pointed out that, "[n]o other GEICO entity" was mentioned on the declaration certificate.

The appellate court added that the next page of Mr. Vukich's insurance contract was the declarations page, which included a general description of Mr. Vukich's insurance policy. The appellate court observed that the GEICO logo was in the top left corner of the declarations page, that GEICO Casualty was listed directly under the GEICO logo, and that no other GEICO entity was listed on the declarations page.

The appellate court then examined the cover page, which followed the declarations page and which was the source of the ambiguity according to Mr. Vukich. The appellate court noted that the GEICO logo was at the top of the cover page, that in the center of the cover page was the title of Mr. Vukich's insurance policy, and that under the title was a list of four separate GEICO insurance companies: GEICO, GEICO Casualty, GEICO General Insurance Company, and GEICO Indemnity Company.

The appellate court rejected Mr. Vukich's contentions that the list created an ambiguity regarding which GEICO company was his insurer on the date of his accident and that the list led him to believe that he was covered by all of the listed GEICO entities.

Other than the list on the cover page, the appellate court reasoned, GEICO Casualty was the only named insurer throughout Mr. Vukich's insurance contract – and in fact the first sentence in the agreement section of the insurance contract stated, "We, the Company named in the declarations attached to this policy, make this agreement with you, the policy holder." The appellate court noted that the only company named in the declarations page was GEICO Casualty – and it declared that the list of GEICO companies on the cover page was "simply a list of affiliated companies" without any indication that a contractual relationship existed between Mr. Vukich and the companies listed on the cover page.

Accordingly, the appellate court concluded that:

• A fair reading of Mr. Vukich's "entire insurance contract" did not result in conflicting interpretations regarding the identity of his actual insurer;
• The insurance contract had to be enforced as written;
• GEICO Casualty was Mr. Vukich's sole insurer on the date of the accident;
• The fact that GEICO Casualty was part of the same family of GEICO insurance companies as GEICO Indemnity and GEICO General Insurance was immaterial; and
• Because Mr. Vukich was a Wisconsin resident who held a Wisconsin insurance policy from GEICO Casualty, which was neither authorized nor licensed to sell insurance in Michigan, Mr. Vukich was ineligible to receive Michigan no-fault benefits.

The case is Vukich v. GEICO Ins. Co., No. 341260 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2019).