Michigan Law

A homeowner affirmatively responded on the insurance application that no business activities were being conducted on the property. However, the homeowner permitted his son to park trucks belonging to his tree service. A fire ensued at the property. The insurance company rescinded the policy. The insured counter-claimed seeking declaratory relief that the rescission was improper. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Insurance Company.

This litigation involved an order of priority dispute between two Michigan no fault insurers. One of the insurers wanted to negate coverage by arguing that its policy was a “commercial” policy. The no-fault law does not carve out a “commercial” policy exception to this rule.

Only fraudulent Michigan No-Fault PIP claims made during the pre-litigation process are covered by MCL §500.3173(a)(4) which addresses fraudulent insurance acts. Statements made for the first-time during discovery cannot form the basis of a fraudulent insurance act defense.

A handyman was electrocuted while power washing a client’s house. The utility company filed for summary disposition, which the Trial Court granted using a premises liability analysis. The Court of Appeals reversed, citing a 1993 case which held “… pursuant to its duty, a power company has an obligation to reasonably inspect and repair wires and other instrumentalities in order to discover and remedy hazards and defects.”

Michigan no-fault PIP benefit limitations enacted in 2019 cannot be applied retroactively, according to a recent Michigan Court of Appeals ruling. The 2019 amendments had sought to limit family-provided attendant care to 56 hours per week and applied fee schedules to medical provider reimbursement rates, to name a few of the new limitations.

Plaintiff, an injured PIP auto claimant, filed a claim with Defendant insurer after a 2016 motorcycle versus truck accident. The motorcyclist plaintiff could not identify the insurance company for the truck; nor could he have done so without legal proceedings. Thus, he filed his PIP claim with his own insurer (Defendant insurer).

Defendant insurer denied a defense or indemnification to its insured when he struck and injured a motorcyclist while making a pizza delivery. The insurer argued that its insured’s actions at the time of the motor vehicle accident constituted operation of a “public and livery conveyance.” The auto insurance policy excluded coverage when the insured vehicle was being used as a “public conveyance.” The Trial Court sided with the insured and an appeal ensued.