Answers · Michigan crash law
Hurt in a Michigan Crash With Out-of-State Insurance? The Denial May Be Wrong
You live in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois. Your car is registered and insured in your home state. You came to Michigan for work, for family, or for an extended stay, and a Michigan driver crashed into you. Now the insurance company says Michigan law bars your claim entirely because you did not carry Michigan no-fault insurance.
That position is often wrong, and a published Michigan Court of Appeals decision explains why.
What is Michigan’s recovery bar for uninsured drivers?
Under MCL 500.3135(2)(c), an uninsured owner-operator cannot recover noneconomic damages from an at-fault driver. The security required is set by MCL 500.3101(1). Noneconomic damages are pain and suffering, the largest part of most serious injury claims. It is one of the harshest penalties in the country.
Michigan imposes one of the harshest penalties in the country on uninsured driving. Under MCL 500.3135(2)(c), a person who was operating his or her own vehicle without the security required by MCL 500.3101(1) cannot recover damages from an at-fault driver. That includes noneconomic damages, what most people call pain and suffering, and it can reach certain economic damages as well.
Section 3101(1) requires the owner of a motor vehicle “required to be registered in this state” to maintain Michigan no-fault coverage. The statute is aimed at Michigan vehicles and the people obligated to register them here.
Why do insurers say 30 days in Michigan voids an out-of-state claim?
They stack two statutes that were never linked. MCL 500.3102(1) says a nonresident may not drive an out-of-state vehicle here more than 30 days a year without Michigan security. The argument runs that violating it makes you uninsured under MCL 500.3135(2)(c). They say your full home-state coverage does not matter.
A different statute, MCL 500.3102(1), says a nonresident may not operate a vehicle registered in another state in Michigan for more than 30 days in a calendar year without maintaining Michigan no-fault security.
Insurers and defense lawyers routinely stack these two statutes together. The argument goes like this: you were in Michigan more than 30 days, so you violated section 3102(1), so you were uninsured under Michigan law, so section 3135(2)(c) wipes out your claim. It does not matter, they say, that you carried full coverage in your home state the entire time.
Have Michigan courts rejected the 30-day argument?
No. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected that argument in Goings v Giacomantonio-Snow, a published 2024 decision. The bar in MCL 500.3135(2)(c) is triggered by one statute only, MCL 500.3101(1). Courts may not read a second one into it.
In Goings v Giacomantonio-Snow, a published 2024 decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected that argument. The court held that the bar in MCL 500.3135(2)(c) is triggered by one statute and one statute only: MCL 500.3101(1). The Legislature referenced a single statutory section, and courts may not read a second one into it.
A violation of the 30-day nonresident provision does not, by itself, strip an insured out-of-state driver of the right to recover. If your vehicle was properly registered and insured in your home state, spending more than 30 days in Michigan does not automatically make your claim worthless.
Was I required to register my vehicle in Michigan?
That is the question these cases actually turn on, and it turns on residency. Michigan’s Vehicle Code generally exempts nonresidents whose vehicles are properly registered in their home state. See MCL 257.243. Residency is rarely as simple as the insurance company claims.
Because only section 3101(1) triggers the bar, these cases usually come down to whether your vehicle was required to be registered in Michigan at all. That turns on residency, and residency is rarely as simple as the insurance company claims.
Michigan’s Vehicle Code generally exempts nonresidents whose vehicles are properly registered in their home state. MCL 257.243. People who split time between two states, keep a permanent address elsewhere, travel back and forth for work, or stay in Michigan on a temporary basis often present genuine questions of fact that a court cannot resolve on a defense motion. Michigan courts have denied summary disposition on exactly these grounds where the evidence showed a driver maintained residences in two states and moved between them.
Is the damages bar constitutional as applied to out-of-state drivers?
Courts are treating it as an open question. It is a second front I am litigating directly. Whether Michigan can strip every form of tort recovery from a motorist who was fully insured, just not with Michigan-specific coverage, has not been settled.
Michigan rewrote its no-fault act in 2019. Whether the statute can constitutionally strip every form of tort recovery from a motorist who was fully insured, just not with Michigan-specific coverage, is a question courts are treating as open.
I currently have several constitutional challenges to MCL 500.3135(2)(c) pending in circuit courts across Michigan, including on behalf of out-of-state drivers who carried valid home-state insurance. In May 2026, the Macomb County judge presiding over one of those cases denied the insurer-backed motion for summary disposition and allowed the constitutional claim to move forward, finding it was not legally insufficient on its face. Courts in other counties have since issued substantive rulings engaging the question, and it is headed toward Michigan’s appellate courts.
I have written separately about how this challenge applies to uninsured Michigan drivers. The short version is the same in both settings. Judges are treating this as a serious, unresolved question of Michigan law. The courthouse door is not closed.
I live out of state and was hurt in Michigan. What should I do?
Do not accept the denial as the final word. Start preserving proof of your home-state ties now: policy declarations, registration, license, lease or mortgage, tax filings and travel records. The “you needed Michigan insurance” argument fails more often than adjusters admit.
Do not accept the denial as the final word. The “you needed Michigan insurance” argument fails more often than adjusters admit.
Preserve proof of your home-state ties. Your policy declarations, registration, driver’s license, lease or mortgage, tax filings, and travel records all matter.
Act quickly. Michigan negligence claims generally carry a three-year limitations period, and no-fault benefit claims are governed by a one-year rule with traps of its own.
Talk to a lawyer who has litigated this exact issue. This is a narrow, technical corner of Michigan no-fault law, and outcomes turn on how the residency and registration questions are framed from the start.
Frequently asked questions
Can I sue after a Michigan crash if my car is insured in another state?
Often, yes. Under Goings v Giacomantonio-Snow, an out-of-state driver with valid home-state registration and insurance is not automatically barred from recovery, even after more than 30 days in Michigan.
Does spending more than 30 days in Michigan void my claim?
No. The 30-day provision in MCL 500.3102(1) does not trigger the recovery bar in MCL 500.3135(2)(c). Only a violation of MCL 500.3101(1) does, and that requires proof your vehicle had to be registered in Michigan.
The insurance company already denied my claim. Is it over?
No. Denials built on the 30-day argument rest on a reading of the statute the Court of Appeals has rejected. Have the denial reviewed before you walk away.
Talk to someone about your case
I am a trial attorney at Michigan Auto Law handling Michigan auto negligence and no-fault cases, and I am actively litigating constitutional challenges to Michigan’s damages bar on behalf of out-of-state and uninsured motorists. If you were hurt in a Michigan collision while your vehicle was registered and insured in another state, and you have been told you have no case, it costs nothing to have the question looked at properly.
This article discusses Michigan law as of July 2026 and is general information, not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and the law in this area is actively developing. Results in past cases do not guarantee a particular outcome in any other case. Attorney advertising. Gary Safir is a trial lawyer at Michigan Auto Law.