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.

The MI Supreme Court issued an opinion stating the no-fault auto reform law cannot apply to crash survivors who bought policies and were injured before the new law took effect..

Even though a guardian may delegate tasks, a question remains in no-fault cases about whether a guardian improperly delegated certain tasks.

The changes to MI’s no-fault law limiting the payment of PIP benefits do not apply to car crash victims who were injured before the 2019 changes went into effect.

In this no-fault insurance case, the trial court properly denied the defendant-insurer’s motions for summary disposition.

The COA held that the stipulated order from which the plaintiff appealed did not qualify as a “final order” and, therefore, the Court did not have jurisdiction over the matter.

The MI SCT recently issued its highly anticipated decision in Bazzi v Sentinel Ins Co, in which the justices declared that no-fault’s “innocent third-party rule” no longer exists.

An auto accident victim is entitled to no-fault insurance benefits under his parents’ no-fault policy where the victim’s parents committed insurance fraud after the policy was purchased.