The Michigan No-Fault Act was adopted in 1973, and since then, there have been over 4000 Michigan appellate court opinions regarding the law. Sinas Dramis Law Firm has written case summaries regarding virtually all these opinions and continues to do so at the present time. The Michigan Auto No-Fault Law Digital Library is a compilation of all the case summaries from Sinas Dramis Law Firm. The case summaries are freely provided to further our goal of educating the public about the Michigan Auto No-Fault Law.
The Digital Library is fully searchable. Therefore, searching by case name or relevant terms is a good way to find the case summary and opinion. There is also an indexing system that allows you to find a case through a statutory index, topical index, alphabetical index, or chronological index.
To make it easy for the public to understand the latest developments in the law, the recent case summaries are listed below.
Guntzviller v Detroit (COA – UNP 2/5/2019; RB #3841)
In this case regarding the parked vehicle exception to first-party PIP benefits, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Plaintiff was not alighting from the parked bus within the meaning of MCL 500.3106, the parked bus was not being utilized as a motor vehicle when it was parked, and there was no casual connection between the injury and the parked vehicle.
W A Foote Mem Hosp v Mich Assigned Claims Plan (COA – UNP 1/29/2019; RB #3840)
In this case regarding the retroactivity of Covenant Med Ctr, Inc v State Farm Mut Ins Co, 500 Mich 191, 196; 895 NW2d 490 (2017), the Court of Appeals found that Covenant applied retroactively to cases pending on appeal.
Newman v Seibold (COA – UNP 1/22/2019; RB #3839)
In this case regarding Plaintiff’s ability to live his normal life under MCL 500.3135(5), the Court of Appeals reasoned that Plaintiff’s life was unaffected by the accident because before the accident Plaintiff lived a severely limited and sedentary lifestyle.
Robertson v Johnson (COA – UNP 1/22/2019; RB #3838)
In this case regarding liability under MCL 257.401, the Court of Appeals found that MCL 257.401 was not limited to negligent entrustment cases and it created a duty between a short-term lessor and the public for purposes of a negligence action.
Parker v Farmers Ins Exch (COA – UNP 1/17/2019; RB #3836)
In this case regarding disqualification from PIP benefits due to fraud, the Court of Appeals found that Plaintiff committed fraud because Plaintiff signed his name to false attendant care forms and submitted the forms to his no-fault insurer.
Piccione v Gillette (COA – PUB 1/17/2019; RB #3837)
In this case regarding the issue of serious impairment of body function, the Court of Appeals found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Mario Gavino’s general ability to live his normal life.
Edwards v Henderson (COA – UNP 1/15/2019; RB #3834)
In this case regarding the failure to maintain no-fault insurance coverage pursuant to MCL 500.3101(1), the Court of Appeals reasoned that a boyfriend who did not live with Plaintiff, but provided no-fault coverage for the vehicle in question, was not the owner of the vehicle, and therefore Plaintiff was excluded from PIP benefits.
Newman v Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (COA – PUB 1/8/2019; RB #3835)
In this case regarding the meaning of an arbitration agreement and res judicata, the Court of Appeals reasoned the terms of the arbitration agreement, not the award amount, dictated the scope of the agreement and res judicata therefore barred the Plaintiff’s action.
McCune v Allstate Ins Co (COA – UNP 1/8/2019; RB #3833)
In this case regarding false and material statements made on an application for benefits with the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility, the Court of Appeals reasoned that there was irrefutable evidence Plaintiff had made false and material statements.
Radwan v Ameriprise Ins Co (COA – UNP 12/20/2018; RB #3829)
In this case regarding the issue of collateral estoppel in an arbitration agreement, the Court of Appeals found the Plaintiff was barred from bringing forward her case because there was a final judgment on the issue, since there was a jury trial; there was an opportunity for Plaintiff to fully litigate the issue, since Plaintiff negotiated away her right to appeal; and there was mutuality of estoppel.
Auto-Owners Ins Co v Compass Healthcare PLC; (COA-PUB; 12/18/2018; RB # 3830)
In this case regarding the charges owed to a medical provider by a no-fault insurer, the Court of Appeals held that a medical provider has a direct cause of action for a payment of the unpaid portion of its medical care against a no-fault insurer, even after an audit conducted by the patient’s no-fault insurer deems the charges unreasonable. However, in order to contest the reasonableness of the amount paid or pursue the remaining balance of its bill, a provider must file a lawsuit against its patient within 1 year, in accordance with MCL 500.3145.
Boulware v Gutsue (COA – UNP 12/18/2018; RB #3828)
In this case regarding the issue of serious impairment of body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for Defendant because it found there was no medical evidence linking the accident to Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.
Somerset Pain Clinic, PC v Esurance Ins Co (COA – UNP 12/13/2018; RB #3826)
In this case regarding the issue of an anti-assignment clause in a no-fault contract, the Court of Appeals found that its prior holding in Jawad A Shah, MC, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182, 208; ___ NW2d ___ (2018) barred anti-assignment clauses in no-fault contracts because they were against public policy.
Spectrum Health Hospitals v GEICO Gen Ins Co (COA – UNP 12/11/2018; RB #3824)
In this case regarding disqualification to no-fault benefits for unlawful taking of a vehicle pursuant MCL 500.3113(a), the Court of Appeals found Plaintiff was disqualified because he did not have permission to use the vehicle in question and there was no evidence to support his claim.
Michigan Spine & Brain Surgeons, PLLC v Auto Owners Ins Co (COA – UNP 12/11/2018; RB #3823)
In this case regarding the application of the one year back rule to an assignment of benefits claim, the Court of Appeals denied Plaintiff’s claim because it found that only one of the three assignments was not for future benefits and the proper assignment occurred more than one year after Plaintiff rendered its services.
Ross v Auto Owners Ins Co (COA – UNP 12/4/2018; RB #3822)
In this case regarding alleged fraud, the Court of Appeals found a genuine issue of material fact because there was conflicting testimony regarding Plaintiff’s work schedule, conflicting testimony if Plaintiff left his job, and there was no paper record of Plaintiff’s work history.
Memberselect Ins Co v State Farm Mut Ins (COA – UNP 12/4/2018; RB #3821)
In this case regarding the issue of vehicle ownership, the Court of Appeals found a genuine issue of material fact regarding ownership because the driver of the motor vehicle had access to the vehicle, free control of the vehicle, and used the vehicle.
Henderson v State Farm Auto Ins Co (COA – UNP 12/4/2018; RB #3820)
In this case regarding the failure of Plaintiff to demonstrate a causal relationship between his injury and his motor vehicle accident, the Court of Appeals found that a reasonable fact finder could find a connection between the accident and injuries Plaintiff suffered.
Attendant Care Co v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co (COA – UNP 11/29/2018; RB #3818)
In this case regarding a medical provider’s independent cause of action and the one year back rule, the Court of Appeals reasoned that an assignment of benefits only relates back to one year before the assignment.
Holman v Mossa-Basha (COA – UNP 11/29/2018; RB #3817)
In this case regarding first-party PIP benefits, the Court of Appeals found that Plaintiff’s no-fault policy had expired prior to his accident and, alternatively, Plaintiff had engaged in misrepresentation or fraud when he applied for his no-fault policy.
VHS of Mich, Inc. v Farm Bureau Mut Ins (COA – UNP 11/27/2018; RB #3816)
In this case regarding a valid assignment of benefits, the Court of Appeals reasoned the assignment instrument was not specific enough to create a valid assignment.
Gonzalez v Titan Indemnity Co (COA – UNP 11/27/2018; RB #3815)
In this case regarding fraud/misrepresentation, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the evidence presented by Plaintiff directly contradicted Defendant’s allegation of fraud/misrepresentation and created a genuine issue of material fact.
Hmeidan v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co (COA – PUB 11/27/2018; RB #3814)
In this case regarding first-party PIP benefits for domiciled relatives, the Court of Appeals found that no-fault insurers can be required to provide first-party PIP benefits for domiciled relatives who are injured while driving motorcycles and involved in motor vehicle accidents under MCL 500.3114(5).
Pike v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co (COA – UNP 11/27/2018; RB #3813)
In this case regarding Plaintiff’s uninsured vehicle being involved in the accident, the Court of Appeals found a genuine issue of material fact because the vehicle was not physically involved in the accident and it did not move during the accident. However, the Court upheld the trial court’s order granting summary disposition against a medical provider because it lacked standing to bring the case.
Vanbibber v Progressive Mich Ins Co (COA – UNP 11/20/2018; RB #3812)
In this case regarding payment for home modifications in a first party PIP case, the Court of Appeals found that case law will allow the trial court to establish future obligations for home modification for PIP benefits.
Henry Ford Health Sys v Everest Nat Ins Co (COA – UNP 11/20/2018; RB #3811)
In this case regarding the enforcement of an anti-assignment provision in the no-fault policy, the Court of Appeals found that anti-assignment provisions are against public policy and unenforceable.
Johnson v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co (COA – UNP 11/15/2018; RB #3810)
In this case regarding the priority of coverage, the Court of Appeals reasoned that an employer’s no-fault insurance contract, which included the injured person as a potential claimant, was of higher priority than the injured individual’s personal insurance policy.
Mich Head & Spine Institute v Mich Assigned Claims Plan (COA – UNP 11/13/2018; RB #3808)
In this case regarding a motion to amend a complaint, the Court of Appeals found that amending the complaint would not burden Defendant and the motion should be granted to Plaintiff.
Med Alternatives v Auto-Owners Ins Co (COA – UNP 11/1/2018; RB #3807)
In this case regarding the one-year-back rule, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the medical provider was limited to only those expenses incurred one year prior to the assignment of benefits pursuant to the one year back rule.