Skip to main content
A Better Partnership
June 06, 2009

MSC Order List: June 5, 2009

On Friday, June 5, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in four cases; stayed the trial court proceedings in Hanners v. Sankaran, No. 138702, pending the Court's consideration of the defendant's application for leave to appeal; and ordered oral argument on the application for leave to appeal in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hudson, No. 137698.

The Court also granted reconsideration of its December 3, 2008 order in Scott v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 136502. In its 2008 order, the Court partially vacated the Court of Appeals' decision because the Court concluded that the Court of Appeals did not apply the proper standard for causation in a no-fault action. Specifically, the Court rejected the Court of Appeals statement that “[a]lmost any causal connection or relationship will do” to satisfy the causation requirement for a no-fault action. The Court vacated the 2008 order, and denied the application for leave to appeal making the Court of Appeals' decision on the defendant's interlocutory appeal final. Justices Corrigan, Markman, and Young dissented, stating that the “new majority” was ignoring (rather than overruling) settled precedent, such as Thornton v. Allstate Insurance Co., 425 Mich. 643 (1986), and Putkamer v. Transamerica Insurance Corp of America, 454 Mich. 626 (1997). Chief Justice Kelly filed a concurring opinion in which she explained her reasoning for vacating the 2008 order.

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.



+ -