The trial court erred in failing to grant partial summary disposition on the issue of the 2019 amendments to the No-Fault Act, the Court of Appeals reversed.

An automobile liability policy should not be voided on public policy grounds because the policyholder had a “sufficient” insurable interest, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In Slocum, Robert Slocum was killed in a motorcycle accident, leaving behind his wife and her biological son, as well as his two minor children from a previous marriage.

In Piccione v Gillette, the Court of Appeals relied on McCormick to conclude that a jury must decide whether the boy suffered a “serious impairment of body function”.

The No-Fault Act’s one-year-back rule, bars a medical provider’s efforts to collect on a patient-insured’s “balance bill” when the action to collect the balance is untimely filed.

A woman who fell and injured herself while washing her vehicle at a self-serve car wash is entitled to no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) benefits.

A trial court should not have dismissed the plaintiff’s no-fault case with prejudice because of the plaintiff’s “unavailability”.

The Court of Appeals decided in Adam v Bell, and overturned an order granting summary disposition to State Farm on the grounds that Cynthia Adam’s claims were barred by res judicata.

Some auto insurance companies include an exclusion that lowers the amount the insured can recover for bodily injury if the injured person is a family member. The exclusion is known as the "family drop down" and it was at issue in Ruzak v USAA Insurance Agency.