Have you been injured? you may have a case.

Precedent Cases Impacting Michigan’s Auto Laws

Michigan case law list and summaries regarding car and truck accidents, and No-Fault insurance

Below you will find detailed explanations of all of the latest case law on auto accidents and No-Fault insurance in Michigan. We provided this information to help explain your rights after a crash, and to help other injury lawyers better protect accident victims.

To speak with one of our attorneys today, call us at (800) 968-1001. There is no charge and no obligation, and we are here to answer all of your questions.

39 Rules for Depositions

The source for lawyers dealing with the scope and breadth of 30 (b)(6) depositions, from QBE Insurance v. Jorda Enterprises.

Serious Impairment of Body Function

A history lesson of Michigan’s Serious Impairment of Body Function injury threshold law.

Admire v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

Case impact: Injured motorcycle accident victim confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life is denied replacement van from No-Fault insurance.

Allard v. State Farm

Case impact: Michigan lawyer can accept a case evaluation award in an auto injury case.

Bahri v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company

Case impact: Mistakes on No Fault statement submittals can result in termination of all No Fault insurance benefits.

Brown v. Homeowners Insurance Company

Case impact: No-Fault wage loss benefits cover both wages and S corporation profits for auto accident victims.

Cameron v. Auto Club

Case impact: No tolling for minors or traumatic brain injury caused by auto accident.

Cassidy v. McGovern

A summary of the Michigan Supreme Court’s first interpretation of the Serious Impairment of Body Function injury threshold law, 1982.

Cunningham v. Allstate

Case impact: Must provide specific notice of accident related injury.

Devillers v. Auto Club

Case impact: One year to file for benefits after a car accident – no exceptions and no tolling.

DiFranco v. Pickard

A summary of the Michigan Supreme Court’s second interpretation of the Serious Impairment of Body Function injury threshold law, 1986.

Douglas v. Allstate

Case impact: When an auto accident victim’s family member can be compensated for providing attendant care services to the victim.

Gardner v. State Farm

Michigan Court of Appeals opinion: Ground for cutting off auto accident victims’ PIP benefits was “unreasonable.”

Grant v. AAA

Case impact: Michigan Consumer Protection Act cannot be used to recover against deception by auto insurance company.

Hannay v. Department of Transportation

Case impact: Auto accident victims can recover excess wage loss benefits from governmental entities that cause a motor vehicle accident

Ile v. Foremost Insurance Company

Case impact: No consequences for Foremost Insurance Company selling completely worthless, illusory underinsured motorist coverage, even though benefits are ‘not possible’ under its policy language.

Johnson v. Recca

Case impact: Auto accident victims cannot sue for excess replacement services that have been unfairly denied by auto insurance companies.

Joseph v. Auto Club Insurance Association

Case impact: No tolling of one-year-back rule limiting recovery of overdue No-Fault benefits for minor car accident victims; overruled U of M Regents v. Titan, reinstated Cameron v. Auto Club.

Kreiner v. Fischer

A summary of the Michigan Supreme Court’s first interpretation of the Legislature’s statutory definition of Serious Impairment of Body Function, 2004.

McCormick v. Carrier

A summary of the Michigan Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the “serious impairment of body function” injury threshold law, 2010.

Miles v. State Farm

Case impact: State Farm settled plaintiff’s No Fault lawsuit and then claimed the settlement barred his subsequent lawsuit for unpaid “uninsured motorist” benefits because it should’ve been raised in the first lawsuit.

Netter v. Bowman

Case impact: Michigan auto accident brain injury victims can still recover for brain injuries that are not confirmed by objective testing.

O’Leary v. Wayne County Department of Public Services

Case impact: A motorcyclist was killed by a downed tree that Wayne County knew about for a week, yet county is immune under new interpretation of Government Tort Liability Act.

PA 354 and PA 355 – Elderly Driving Law

Impact: Doctors can – but are not obligated to – notify the Secretary of State if they believe their patients, including the elderly, have heath conditions that render them unfit to drive.

Perkovic v. Hudson Insurance Company

Case impact: When a self-employed, independent-contractor trucker is injured in a crash, the insurer for the motor carrier for whom the trucker was working for must pay for the trucker’s No-Fault benefits, if the motor carrier had leased the truck.

Roque v. Pilot

Case impact: A Canadian citizen who was injured by a negligent Michigan driver has 12 months from the date when he has a body of evidence accumulated of persuading a judge that his claim exceeds Michigan’s minimum liability limit of $20,000.

Ross v. Allstate

Case impact: Document injuries and inform insurance company of all injuries after Michigan automobile accident.

Ross v. Auto-Club

Case impact: How to compute wage loss after a car accident.

Spencer v. Weaver

Case impact: “Impairment v. pain” is not consistently interpreted based on the type of work car accident victims previously performed.

Straub v. Collette

Case impact: “No serious impairment” for car accident victim with serious hand injury and two months off of work.

Titan v. Hyten

Case impact: Auto insurers have the ability to revisit the application for No-Fault benefits after the claim is made, enabling them to avoid liability for a third-party injury in some cases.

University of Michigan Regents v. Titan Insurance

Case impact: The one-year-back rule, limits recovery of overdue No Fault benefits, for minors hurt in car accidents; overruled Cameron v. Auto Club Insurance Association.

Woodruff v. State Farm

Case impact: State Farm must pay uninsured motorist benefits despite stonewalling, misrepresentation and deception in efforts to deny claim.

ZCD Transportation v. State Farm

Case impact: Limits No-Fault transportation services to only medical visits, therefore any other transportation is considered replacement services.