Michigan Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the summary disposition holding that the insurer should have moved to amend its affirmative defenses. The insurer was obligated to adequately assert rescission, including the specific facts for rescission, in an amendment to its affirmative defenses.

An assignment of benefits from a medical provider to a third-party company does not preclude a medical provider from maintaining its cause of action under MCL 500.3112.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has determined that a trial court properly denied a defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the issue of whether a teen decedent’s future earning potential can be proven with reasonable certainty.

An auto insurer must formally deny a no-fault PIP claim for the statute of limitations to begin to run. This case was the first reported appellate decision applying MCL § 500.3145.

A restaurant slip and fall case was before the U.S. District Court in Detroit when Defendant fast food restaurant filed a Motion for Summary Disposition. Defendant asserted that Plaintiff could not prove a breach of duty or causation (proximate cause) between the alleged defective condition and the Plaintiff’s accident. The U.S. District Court Judge denied the Motion for Summary Disposition. Read the full story …

Michigan has a “no pay, no play” rule. A claimant cannot maintain bodily injury claims arising from a motor vehicle accident if, at the time of loss, he or she was operating a motor vehicle he or she owned which failed to maintain Michigan no-fault auto insurance.

The Trial Judge felt that expert testimony was needed to resolve the issue of who was at fault in this motor vehicle accident between a semitruck and a SUV, despite the existence of a dash cam video. The case was permitted to proceed.