A driver injured in a 2018 auto accident received medical services from plaintiff pain clinic during the period of March to September 2019. As part of the services, the driver assigned his rights for no-fault benefits to plaintiff. The assignments contained a provision that the rights could not be revoked unless both parties agreed.
Read MorePlaintiffs were involved in an automobile accident and were insured by Defendant Insurer at the time of the accident. Prior to trial, Defendant Insurer discovered a discrepancy between the Plaintiff insured’s address on the insurance application and the accident police report.
Read MoreThe question of whether an icy sidewalk was an “open and obvious” condition was one factor in a recent Michigan Court of Appeals ruling. Plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk at her St. Clair Shores housing cooperative. Plaintiff had removed snow from her personal walkway behind her townhome, and then walked around the building on the community walkway with the intention of clearing snow from her front porch.
Read MoreThe Michigan Court of Appeals addressed for the first time the “knew or should have known” language under MCL 500.3113 - “Persons Not Entitled to Personal Protection Insurance Benefits.” Plaintiff in this No-Fault action was the driver of a leased automobile involved in an accident. Defendant was insurer Tokio Marine.
Read MoreThe Michigan Court of Appeals addressed for the first time the “knew or should have known” language under MCL 500.3113 - “Persons Not Entitled to Personal Protection Insurance Benefits.” Plaintiff in this No-Fault action was the driver of a leased automobile involved in an accident. Defendant was insurer Tokio Marine.
Read More