Michigan Law

This first-party, no-fault action for PIP benefits involved, in part, a material question of fact regarding plaintiff’s supposed acceptance of the policy recission.

Michigan HB 5125 allows medical treatment for catastrophic injuries sustained in an auto accident subject to personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, with the implementation date delayed until July 1, 2022.

A notice of cancellation for a no-fault policy under MCL 500.3020(1)(b) must be “preemptory, explicit, and unconditional,” according to a recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling. In the case reviewed, the insurance company sent the cancellation notice before the premium was due.

The payment of personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits is addressed in this case originating from a 2016 trucking accident. The injured driver was an independent contractor, yet the appellate court found the existence of an employer-employee relationship by applying the economic-reality test to evaluate four specific employment factors.

Plaintiff was a waitress who was employed by defendant restaurant for almost four years. The waitress slip and fell on a wet and soapy floor after being ordered by her boss to deliver food to a table that arrived after closing hours. The patrons being served were friends of the restaurant owner. The busboy had already washed a portion of the floor, and the late arrivals selected a table in an area of the restaurant where the floor was still wet.

A driver injured in a 2018 auto accident received medical services from plaintiff pain clinic during the period of March to September 2019. As part of the services, the driver assigned his rights for no-fault benefits to plaintiff. The assignments contained a provision that the rights could not be revoked unless both parties agreed.

Plaintiffs were involved in an automobile accident and were insured by Defendant Insurer at the time of the accident. Prior to trial, Defendant Insurer discovered a discrepancy between the Plaintiff insured’s address on the insurance application and the accident police report.

The question of whether an icy sidewalk was an “open and obvious” condition was one factor in a recent Michigan Court of Appeals ruling. Plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk at her St. Clair Shores housing cooperative. Plaintiff had removed snow from her personal walkway behind her townhome, and then walked around the building on the community walkway with the intention of clearing snow from her front porch.