Publications for No-Fault Litigation
The Michigan Supreme Court held in an opinion that the door of an automobile is not "equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle" for purposes of MCL 500.3106(1)(b) and clarified the meaning of "alighting" for MCL 500.3106(1)(c).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that Medicare is not limited to the portion of a settlement or verdict designated as for medical losses when seeking reimbursement under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.
The Michigan Court of Appeals has provided guidance for use in calculating the amount to be paid for family-provided attendant care services in a No Fault case.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment against a no-fault insurer's defense that it needed the taxpayer identification number of the attendant care provider in order to have "reasonable proof" under MCL 500.5142(2).
Michigan Supreme Court held that a No Fault insured must show by "objective and verifiable medical evidence" that an experimental medical procedure is efficacious before the procedure can be found to be "reasonably necessary."
Unanimous panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals hands down a published opinion that a no-fault insurer is liable under MCL 500.3107(1)(a) for conservator fees incurred for the management of an accident victim’s affairs.
In a published opinion issued on March 10, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals applied the "Koski" rule.
In a published case handed down on February 15, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of a teacher who was injured in an automobile accident and sought wage loss benefits.
Most claims for damages against the state or its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms or agencies must be filed in the Court of Claims in Ingham County.
This outline is intended to assist our clients in evaluating “first-party” claims for personal and property protection benefits arising under the Michigan No-Fault Act. Throughout this Outline, citations are made to specific sections of the Michigan No-Fault Act. A complete copy of the current No-Fault Act is contained in Appendix A.
The standard jury instructions are contained in Appendix B. These instructions provide the mechanism by which the jury will address and resolve contested issues.
On September 28, 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals extended the "Koski" rule to hold that an insurer must show actual prejudice from an insured's failure to join uninsured parties in her suit against the insurer for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits in order to enforce the policy provision requiring such joinder.
In the much-anticipated decision in Regents of the University of Michigan v Titan Insurance Company, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned Liptow v State Farm and Cameron v ACIA...
In a 4-3 decision handed down on July 31, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court has held that "Kreiner v Fischer, was wrongly decided because it departed from the plain language of MCL 500.3135, and is therefore overruled."
In a 4-3 decision handed down on July 8, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the Commissioner of Insurance does not have the authority to promulgate rules that ban the use of credit reports to establish discounted premiums for automobile and homeowner's insurance policies.
On June 22, 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals unanimously affirming the trial court's decision that the MCCA is not required to indemnify a No Fault insurer for PIP benefits paid over the statutory threshold.
In a published opinion issued March 16, 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that an injured person cannot be denied work loss benefits based on an employer's failure to provide a sworn statement of the injured person's earnings, nor does the injured person's failure to file tax returns preclude work loss benefits.
The court held that the statute mandated that the required language must appear on both the declarations page and the certificate of insurance.
On February 2, 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals handed down an unpublished opinion affirming the trial court's award of $57,690 in attorney fees and $9,651.67 in costs on a jury verdict of $1,235 and $218.94 in penalty interest. Tinnin v Farmers Insurance Exchange (No. 286141).
On June 16, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals held in a published opinion that a car dealership's insurer was the priority insurer in a third-party action brought against a customer who was test driving the dealership's vehicle.
The Court of Appeals held that the one-year back rule applies to a fraud claim if the plaintiff cannot establish reasonable reliance on the insurer's representations.
On February 24, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a no-fault insurer must pay attendant care benefits to an insured, even when the insurer is entitled to seek reimbursement of those benefits from the person providing the services.
The Michigan Court of Appeals published an opinion holding that a driver was not entitled to no-fault benefits because she unlawfully took a motor vehicle without a reasonable belief that she was entitled to both take and use it.
The Michigan Supreme Court has held that No Fault attorney fees cannot be awarded on PIP benefits that are not overdue...
In a 4-3 decision issued on December 29, 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association may refuse to indemnify no-fault insurers who make payments for expenses that the MCCA deems "unreasonable."
The Michigan Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded for determination whether the Plaintiff's injuries, suffered in his second car accident in a single year, caused a serious impairment of body function.
In a published decision issued December 11, 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals narrowed the range of homecare living expenses recoverable after a motor vehicle accident.
Michigan Court of Appeals applied the judicially created "family member joyriding" exception in a no-fault case, but it explicitly stated that it was doing so only because of the requirements of precedent and MCR 7.215.
Michigan Court of Appeals held in a published opinion that (1) no-fault insurers may utilize a household exclusion to limit liability coverage to the statutory minimum; and (2) an insurer does not have a duty to investigate a policy applicant's (mis)representations.
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in allowing a jury to consider agency rates for health care professionals in its determination of hourly rates for attendant care by an unlicensed family member.
The Michigan Court of Appeals has unanimously reversed summary disposition for Defendant...
On July 2, 2008, the Supreme Court held that an irrebuttable presumption of lawful incorporation exists when a company is formed under the Business Corporations Act.
On April 29, 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued the unpublished decision in the business insurance/no-fault case of Christina Sisk-Rathburn v Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan
On June 25, 2008, the Supreme Court held that the one-year back rule of MCL 500.3145(1) does not apply to a fraud action seeking damages for a No Fault insurer’s allegedly fraudulent conduct.
On June 19, 2008, the Court of Appeals held in a published opinion that services might be lawfully rendered under MCL 500.3157...
Any time a patient is treated for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident, more likely than not a no-fault automobile insurance company has some obligation to pay related bills.
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the insurer of an automobile that was allegedly borrowed from another and involved in fatal accident owed the driver a duty to defend but not necessarily to indemnify pending jury resolution of whether the owner consented to the use.
On April 23, 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a contractual claim limitations clause in an underinsured motorist insurance (UIM) policy is not subject to judicial tolling.
In Roberts v Farmers Ins Exchange, plaintiff, a 12 year old girl involved in a motor vehicle accident, repeatedly cancelled or missed physical and neuropsychological independent medical examinations.
On February 26, 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals held in an unpublished opinion that summary disposition should have been granted for Defendant in an Uninsured Motorist (UM) dispute where Plaintiff could not show that there was contact with the unidentified vehicle.
On February 26, 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that summary disposition should have been granted for Defendant in an Uninsured Motorist (UM) dispute where Plaintiff could not show that there was contact with the unidentified vehicle.
"...the plaintiff claimed he suffered a back injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident and presented evidence that he had to subcontract his work at his granite fabricating and installing business."
Defendant’s vehicle crossed the center line and collided head-on with plaintiff’s vehicle.
On January 22, 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion in Kerr v Citizens Insurance Company of America, Docket No. 273319.
On January 15, 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in Hill v L.F. Transportation and Auto-Owners Insurance Co., Docket No. 267959.
