Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Jul 2017
19
July 19, 2017

COA: Insurer does not have to defend a lawsuit against a police officer that alleges conduct outside the of scope of employment

The Michigan Court of Appeals, in Matouk v. Michigan Municipal League Liability & Property Pool, No. 332482, reversed the trial court’s decision and held that an insurance company was not contractually required to provide a defense for a police officer in a federal civil rights action because the complaint alleged conduct that was not within the scope of the officer’s employment as that term was used in the insurer’s policy.

Jun 2017
16
June 16, 2017

MSC broadens parked-car exception to the Michigan no-fault insurance act

In Daniel Kemp v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan, No. 151719, the Michigan Supreme Court of reversed the Court of Appeals and overruled Shellenberger v Insurance Co. of North America, holding that a man who had injured himself while unloading a bundle from his parked truck raised sufficient issues of material fact to survive a motion for summary judgment. 
 

Jun 2017
09
June 09, 2017

COA Interprets Earth Movement Exclusion As Applying to Any Earth Movement

In Home-Owners Insurance Co. v. Dominic F. Adnriacchi, No. 331260, the Court of Appeals held the plain language of an insurance contract excluding damage cause by “any earth movement” meant what it said and did not apply only to natural earth movement.  
 

Jun 2017
01
June 01, 2017

MSC holds that healthcare providers do not have a direct cause of action against no-fault insurers

In Covenant Medical Center, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that under the plain language of Michigan’s no-fault act for automobile accidents, MCL 500.3101 et seq., a healthcare provider does not have a statutory cause of action against a no-fault insurer to recover personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 118)
 |<  < 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10  >  >| 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset