Insurance – Underinsured Motorist Coverage – Policy Preclusion
The trial court correctly ruled that plaintiff was not eligible for underinsured motorist benefits from his no-fault insurer after he was injured while driving his wife’s car, which was insured by...
View ArticleNo-Fault – Serious Impairment – Analysis Under ‘McCormick’
Where the trial court determined, under the now-reversed Kreiner analysis, that a no-fault plaintiff did not suffer a serious impairment of body function, on remand, the court must revisit the issue...
View ArticleInsurance – Uninsured Motorist Claim – Joinder
Plaintiff’s failure to join all necessary parties, as contractually required to sue her insurer for uninsured motorist benefits, is not fatal to her claim. Defendant insurer incurred no prejudice by...
View Article‘Koski’ rule expanded to joinder requirements
A Michigan Court of Appeals decision has expanded a “narrow exception” to contract law requiring an insurance company show prejudice caused by an insured’s mistake in order to evade responsibility for...
View ArticleUnderinsurance policy illusory at state minimum coverage says COA
An underinsured motorist insurance (UIM) policy was an illusory contract because it was written in such a way that the insured could never be paid benefits, the Michigan Court of Appeals said. The...
View ArticleInsurance – Uninsured Motorist Benefits – Owned Vehicle
The trial court correctly concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits from his mother’s policy as a resident relative. Plaintiff owned a vehicle when the accident occurred,...
View ArticleInsurance – Uninsured Motorist – Contractual Limitations Period
Where the parties’ contract for uninsured motorist benefits contained a three-year limitations period in which to seek contract benefits, the trial court correctly rejected plaintiff’s argument that...
View ArticleInsurance – Uninsured Motorist Benefits –‘Other Insurance’ Clauses
Plaintiff is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits from the insurer of the vehicle in which she was injured. Although plaintiff had uninsured motorist benefits through her own insurer, these benefits...
View ArticleMan contends PIP, UIM benefits should have been continued
Plaintiff Edem Stafford sought continuation of first-party personal injury protection (PIP) and uninsured motorist (UIM) benefits from defendants Amanda Fagan, Dynette Hicks-Porter and State Farm...
View ArticlePrior back treatment questioned after crash
Defendant State Farm did not contest liability in an uninsured motorist claim filed by plaintiff Madeleine McConnell. State Farm claimed that its insured’s injuries were either not the result of a...
View ArticleJury sides with plaintiff after rear-end crash
Plaintiff receives case evaluation sanctions The post Jury sides with plaintiff after rear-end crash first appeared on Michigan Lawyers Weekly.
View ArticleMoped not a ‘motor vehicle’ for UM
A moped is not a “motor vehicle” for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage, a panel of the Court of Appeals has ruled. The post Moped not a ‘motor vehicle’ for UM first appeared on Michigan Lawyers...
View ArticleInsurance — Moped – ‘Motor vehicle’
Where a plaintiff policyholder’s teenage son was struck by an automobile while he was riding a moped, the defendant insurance company should not have been granted summary disposition on the plaintiff’s...
View ArticleNo-Fault Law — UM/UIM exclusion – Motorcycle
Where the plaintiff estate of a decedent who was killed in an accident while riding his motorcycle filed a complaint for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits and underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits, an...
View ArticleNo-Fault Law – UM and UIM benefits
Where a judge rejected a claim for uninsured motorist benefits and underinsured motorist benefits filed by the estate of a decedent who was killed in a single-car accident, the judge’s decision should...
View ArticleNo-Fault Law — Uninsured motorist – Hit-and-run
Where a plaintiff claiming that he was injured in a hit-and-run accident requested uninsured motorist benefits, it was proper for the defendant insurance company to be granted summary disposition...
View Article‘Indirect’ hit-and-run enough for UM claim
Does a hit-and-run vehicle actually have to directly strike another vehicle for a motorist to be entitled to uninsured motorist benefits? Not necessarily, according to a recent decision by a Court of...
View ArticleNo-Fault Law — Uninsured motorist – ‘Substantial physical nexus’
Where a defendant insurance company was granted summary disposition in favor of defendant regarding a plaintiff policyholder’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits, a reversal is warranted because the...
View Article$145 award could net lawyer fees of $235K
In a lawsuit seeking PIP and uninsured motorist coverage, the Court of Appeals tossed all of the plaintiff’s claims, except for one. And that remaining claim is a doozy. The post $145 award could net...
View ArticleNothing to smile about: Appeals court frowns on UM/UIM claim
Communications with opposing counsel don’t have to be stuffy and stilted, but they should be professional. Inserting a “tongue-in-cheek” query in an otherwise serious email chain probably isn’t the...
View Article