A healthcare provider that treats an injured person for an accidental bodily injury is not entitled to recover no-fault personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under MCL 500.3112 when the injured person is an "owner" of an uninsured motor vehicle under MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i) and therefore ineligible to receive PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b).

As the sole member of the limited-liability company that held title to the tractor, plaintiff had the exclusive, unsupervised right to use, maintain, and make all decisions regarding the vehicle for more than 30 days, which comported with ownership, regardless of the fact that title was held by his single-member LLC.

A special panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that § 3116 of the No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3116) applies only to a no-fault insurer’s right of reimbursement from a claimant and “does not apply to an insurer’s tort recovery, as a subrogee, against a nonmotorist tortfeasor.”

An insurer was not entitled to a new trial based on unpreserved references to a third party’s drunkenness because the verdict was supported by the evidence and any prejudice was cured by jury instructions. The trial court also properly awarded no-fault attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1), as the insurer’s prior acknowledgment of the injury made its denial unreasonable, and a later record review could not create factual uncertainty retroactively.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff stipulated to a dismissal in favor of arbitration without reserving the right to appeal prior orders and therefore, was not an aggrieved party.

In this no-fault insurance case, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ denial of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to the injured plaintiff, finding the appeals court misinterpreted the applicable no-fault statute and wrongly extended dicta from case precedent.

The no‑fault act permits an injured motorcyclist—or their medical provider—to continue down the statutory order of priority under MCL 500.3114(5) once a higher‑priority insurer's capped benefits have been exhausted.

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 Michigan Supreme Court held that both C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC, and Wallace had standing to file their respective lawsuits, but they were not the real parties in interest at the time of filing because they had assigned their claims for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits to third parties.

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 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.

An attorney’s alleged defamatory statements to another lawyer while waiting for a court-ordered mediation conference to begin were confidential mediation communications.

The No-Fault Act’s one-year-back rule, bars a medical provider’s efforts to collect on a patient-insured’s “balance bill” when the action to collect the balance is untimely filed.

The Court of Appeals decided in Adam v Bell, and overturned an order granting summary disposition to State Farm on the grounds that Cynthia Adam’s claims were barred by res judicata.