MCCA defined “resident” as “all owners or registrants of motor vehicles required to be registered [in Michigan] ... .” In re Certified Question, supra at 719. 25 Id. This Court, determining that the statute controlled over the MCCA’s definition of “resident,” held that the statute nonetheless contained a parallel provision to the MCCA’s definition of “resident.” As we will discuss, this Court explained that “personal protection insurance coverages,” as used in MCL 500.3104(2), refers to policies providing “the compulsory security requirements of [MCL 500.3101(1)],” i.e., “ ‘residents,’ in the language of the [MCCA’s] plan of operation.” In re Certified Question, supra at 723. 26 See also Liberty Mut Ins Co v Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass’n, 248 Mich App 35, 42; 638 NW2d 155 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Farmers Ins Exch v South Lyon Community
holding that assignment of insureds rights to coverage for property damage under automobile insurance policy to automobile repairer was invalid because of antiassignment provision holding that the mcca was not obligated to indemnify a claim under a california automobile insurance policy that was reformed into a michigan nofault automobile insurance policy five years after the subject accident and stating that the mcca can refuse to indemnify claims paid under mcl 5003163 holding that united states in ftca action may rely on immunities available to a private automobile owner covered by new jerseys nofault insurance law even though it was not literally the owner of an automobile under the new jersey statute holding that an insurance company had to indemnify defendant driver pursuant to policy because shooting that caused accident was determined to be accidental holding that there may be an obligation to defend under an insurance policy even though there is no obligation to indemnify