Michigan Law

Geico only paid a partial amount on a healthcare provider’s bill for prescribed attendant services in a PIP benefits case. The provider filed a lawsuit for the unpaid benefits and the circuit court dismissed the case. On appeal, Geico argued that the charges in question could not be billed for under MCL 500.3107(1)(a), which is the applicable statute. The court agreed.

A Michigan Trial Court held that plaintiff was entitled to PIP benefits after she fell into a service pit while her car was parked for service. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the no-fault act was not designed to compensate for all injuries occurring in or around a motor vehicle.

The Michigan Supreme Court has ordered that it is within the discretion of the trial court to permit a plaintiff to video record her independent medical evaluation (IME).

The lack of a direct physical loss or damage to plaintiff’s property precluded business interruption coverage due to COVID. This decision is consistent with other similar claims seeking business interruption for Covid related business closures.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a recent MVA case that if the medical evidence is conflicting, summary disposition is inappropriate. The case was remanded for the trier of fact (jury) to determine whether Plaintiff’s post-MVA lifestyle met the serious impairment criteria.

Michigan is a no-fault state. For a plaintiff to sustain a bodily injury claim against an at-fault motorist, the plaintiff must show that he or she has suffered a serious impairment. In this case the Plaintiff was a legally incapacitated person before the MVA. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals entered judgment favorable to the Defendants.

The trial court determined that a 2018 homeowners insurance policy was void because the insured was dead at the time of the insurance renewal. The Plaintiff was the insured’s daughter who was living in the home when it was destroyed by fire in 2019. Therefore, there could not have been an offer and acceptance (i.e., a contract) when the 2018-2019 policy was issued.

It is permissible to record a telephone conversation with another individual without that individual’s consent under Michigan’s eavesdropping statute. So said the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision.