Michigan Law

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued an instructive decision regarding the distribution of PIP benefits for losses that an injured person has not yet incurred. In a consolidated case before the Michigan Court of Appeals, Plaintiff appellants, Michigan Head & Spine Institute, PC and McLaren Macomb appealed the trial court’s order granting Defendant, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s, Motion to interplead funds and apportioning the available funds between the providers. One of the issues before the Michigan Court of Appeals was the apportionment of future attendant-care benefits to the Plaintiff.

This article discusses under what circumstance a nonresident owner or registrant of a motor vehicle who operates that vehicle in Michigan for an aggregate of 30 or more days in a calendar year is precluded from maintaining a 3rd party auto negligence claim for bodily injuries because the owner or registrant failed to carry Michigan no-fault insurance. 

The Michigan Court of Appeals issued an instructive decision regarding what constitutes sufficient constructive notice to avoid summary disposition in a premises liability case. In this case, the Plaintiff had been renting a house from the Defendant since April 2019. Throughout the tenancy, Plaintiff reported various issues in and around the house that required repairs. Defendant made the requested repairs during that time, though Plaintiff testified those repairs were not always made promptly.

In January 2023, Plaintiff exited her front porch and suffered serious injuries when the bottom step collapsed as she was descending the stairs. Plaintiff sued, alleging that the Defendant had a duty to keep the property free of, inspect for, and warn about the dangerous condition.

Recently, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an instructive opinion in Ibo Ware v. Meemic Insurance Company addressing the issue of coverage owed to an individual involved in an accident with an uninsured motor vehicle.

Recently, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an instructive opinion in Fuchs v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association addressing a claimant’s burden of submitting reasonable proof in support of a PIP claim.

In August of 2001 an individual suffered a fractured vertebra in his back due to a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff had a subsequent surgery to treat the injury. The individual developed degenerative disc disease which eventually caused spinal cord complications leading to three more surgeries in 2018 and 2019

This case arises from an April 2021 Michigan auto accident. Claimant was seriously injured and subsequently treated at VHS of Michigan d/b/a Detroit Medical Center. The PIP insurer determined that a vehicle involved in the crash was not garaged at the address listed on the policy and rescinded the policy for fraud. As a result of that fraud, the PIP insurer denied the claim in its entirety. Both claimant and VHS were innocent third-parties.

A dairy inspector from the Michigan Department of Agriculture conducted an inspection at a family dairy farm in Dundee and identified a protein buildup which needed to be cleaned inside the farm’s 1,500-gallon bulk milk tank. Despite admitting unfamiliarity with a specific cleaner called “Cold War,” the Inspector stated the chemical cleaner could work for the task of cleaning out the tank. Experts later testified Cold War was a cleaner designed for automated systems, not manual application. The product’s label carried warnings about severe chemical burns, the dangers of breathing its fumes, and the need for protective equipment and ventilation.