When a vehicle’s owner neither expressly permitted nor expressly prohibited the claimant from taking the vehicle, whether the vehicle was “taken unlawfully” under MCL 500.3113(a) depends on whether the driver took it with the owner’s implied permission. That determination turns on all the facts and circumstances surrounding the taking, as well as the driver’s previous use of the vehicle.

The trial court abused its discretion when it ordered reformation of the insured’s no-fault policy instead of rescission, the Michigan Supreme Court has held in a unanimous decision.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of claims brought against the University of Michigan relating to the school’s retention of tuition, fees, and housing payments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s grant of summary disposition because Michigan law recognizes a critical exception for loading or uploading in its definition of parking, and thus Plaintiff’s conduct fits within that exception, and because comparative negligence is a question for the jury.

An auto insurance company could not rescind an insured’s policy ab initio (“from the beginning”) because there was not enough evidence the insured made fraudulent statements during the application process, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

MCL 500.3114(2)(c) prioritizes vehicles “operated in the business of transporting passengers” and contains a related carveout for “a bus operating under a government sponsored transportation program.” In this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that this subsection applies in this case, and it affirms the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant.

The wrongful death savings provisions under MCL 600.5852 extends the filing timeframe and tolls the statutory notice period and therefore the Court of Claims grant of summary disposition was reversed and remanded.

Trial court ruled that plaintiff didn’t have an interest in the home purchased by the defendant and the defendant’s inheritance, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The plaintiff, Elizabeth Silverman, filed a breach of contract suit against the defendant, Lawrence Korn, because he refused to pay for legal work that she had performed in his divorce case.