Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

May 2017
25
May 25, 2017

COA: A claim for "reimbursement" against medical providers under the Assigned Claims System is subject to a 2-year limitations period

In Citizens Ins Co of America v. University Physician Grp, No 328553, the Court of Appeals found when a plaintiff, seeking to enforce rights to indemnity or reimbursement, uses the word “reimbursement” in a complaint against a third party provider defendant(s) under the assigned claims system, the 2-year statute of limitations under MCL 500.3175(3) governs the proceedings.

May 2017
22
May 22, 2017

COA: Businesses that peripherally participate in auto maintenance and repair are not excluded from coverage under the No Fault Act

The Michigan Insurance Code excludes no-fault insurance liability for property damage only where the damage occurs at a business whose primary purpose is to provide maintenance and repair services for motor vehicles, said the Michigan Court of Appeals in Hastings Mutual Insurance Company v. Grange Insurance Company, No. 333193. The exclusion does not apply to a business that has primary purpose doing something else and only peripherally participates in vehicle repair and maintenance. 
  
In this case, although a farm barn was regularly used to provide repairs and maintenance to the farm’s vehicles as well as the vehicles of the family members, it did not change the primary purpose of the business from farming to vehicle repair business.

Feb 2017
25
February 25, 2017

Back off the front-end loader: it is exempt from registration requirements under Michigan’s no-fault act

A front-end loader that has to travel about a quarter of a mile along a public road between work sites is exempt from the no-fault act’s registration and insurance requirements, said the Michigan Court of Appeals in Bergman v. Cotanche, No. 330438.  The vehicle was neither designed for nor used for the transport of people or property, and its travel over public roads was incidental to its main purpose—to plow snow.  The front-end loader thus fell under the statutory exemption for “special mobile equipment.”

Feb 2017
16
February 16, 2017

COA holds that a question of fact prevents summary disposition on a PIP claim based on an insurer's fraud exclusion

In Tyann Shelton v Auto-Owners Insurance Company, No 328473, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in holding an exclusionary provision that defendant's no-fault policy does not bar plaintiff's personal injury protection (PIP) claim. The defendant sought summary disposition based upon a fraud exclusion clause in its policy, asserting that plaintiff made fraudulent statements concerning her need for replacement services and so was excluded by the policy from all PIP benefits. The trial court granted summary disposition as to replacement services and denied the motion as to payment for medical services and from that ruling, defendant appeals by leave granted.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 106)
 |<  < 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