Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Parks v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchangegreen2 sentences2023But because the trailer was not required to be registered in Michigan, it “was not subject to the mandatory security requirement in § 3101(1).” Parks, 426 Mich at 200 . 1989See Parks v DAIIE, 426 Mich 191 ; 393 NW2d 833 (1986). 14 It is upon § 3104(7)(d), however, that we squarely rest our finding of a legislative intent to limit indemnification under § 3104(2). | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Certified Question
green
2 sentences2008This contractual liability, or coverage, owed by each insurer is the total amount agreed The majority opinion relies significantly on language from In re Certified Question that limits the indemnification requirement of § 3104(2) to “a policy which was written in this state to provide the compulsory security requirements of § 3101(1) of the no-fault act for the ‘owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state.’” In re Certified Question, 433 Mich at 723 . 2008By incorporating the reasonableness requirement of “benefits” into “coverages,” the majority blurs the meaning of the terms and ignores the broad common meaning of “coverages.” The majority opinion relies significantly on language from In re Certified Question that limits the indemnification requirement of § 3104(2) to “a policy which was written in this state to provide the compulsory security requirements of § 3101(1) of the no-fault act for the ‘owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state.’ ” In re Certified Question, 433 Mich at 723 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2008MCL 500.3105(1) obligates a member insurer to pay PIP benefits.28 MCL 500.3107(1)(a) defines PIP benefits, in relevant part, as “[a]llowable expenses consisting of all reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations for an injured person’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation.” Thus, a no-fault policy written in this state must, at a minimum, provide PIP benefits that include “reasonable charges incurred for reasonably the course of delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential . . . 2008MCL 500.3105(1) obligates a member insurer to pay PIP benefits.28 MCL 500.3107(1)(a) defines PIP benefits, in relevant part, as “[a]llowable expenses consisting of all reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations for an injured person’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation.” Thus, a no-fault policy written in this state must, at a minimum, provide PIP benefits that include “reasonable charges incurred for reasonably the course of delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential . . . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
green
2 sentences2008Thus, the parties’ competing policy arguments are misplaced because this Court is without authority to replace the Legislature’s choice with our own. 33 MCL 500.3104(8)(g). 34 Id. 20 claimed loss must be “sustained under personal protection insurance coverages.”35 A loss “sustained under personal protection insurance coverages” is one sustained under a policy providing “the compulsory security requirements of § 3101(1) . . . .”36 Under § 3107(1)(a), such policies minimally include “reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations for an injured person’ 2008Thus, the parties’ competing policy arguments are misplaced because this Court is without authority to replace the Legislature’s choice with our own. 33 MCL 500.3104(8)(g). 34 Id. 20 claimed loss must be “sustained under personal protection insurance coverages.”35 A loss “sustained under personal protection insurance coverages” is one sustained under a policy providing “the compulsory security requirements of § 3101(1) . . . .”36 Under § 3107(1)(a), such policies minimally include “reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations for an injured person’ | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Oshtemo Charter Township v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission
green
2 sentences2025All of the following apply under this subdivision: (i) The named insured shall, within 30 days after the effective date of the termination of the qualified health coverage, obtain insurance that provides the a mistake of expression (rather than of legislative wisdom) has been made.” Oshtemo Charter Twp v Kalamazoo Co Rd Comm, 288 Mich App 296, 303 ; 792 NW2d 401 (2010). -12- security required under section 3101(1) that includes coverage that was excluded under this subsection. (ii) During the period described in subparagraph (i), if any person excluded suffers accidental bodily injury arising 2025All of the following apply under this subdivision: (i) The named insured shall, within 30 days after the effective date of the termination of the qualified health coverage, obtain insurance that provides the a mistake of expression (rather than of legislative wisdom) has been made.” Oshtemo Charter Twp v Kalamazoo Co Rd Comm, 288 Mich App 296, 303 ; 792 NW2d 401 (2010). -12- security required under section 3101(1) that includes coverage that was excluded under this subsection. (ii) During the period described in subparagraph (i), if any person excluded suffers accidental bodily injury arising | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.