usaa motion in Michigan

2023National moved for reconsideration of both orders, arguing that under Griffin v Trumbull Ins Co, 334 Mich App 1 ; 964 NW2d 63 (2020), rev’d in part 509 Mich 484 (2022), plaintiff lacked due diligence to identify National as the priority insurer, so she was precluded from seeking benefits from National or Farmers, and USAA was next in priority.

2023National moved for reconsideration of both orders, arguing that under Griffin v Trumbull Ins Co, 334 Mich App 1 ; 964 NW2d 63 (2020), rev’d in part 509 Mich 484 (2022), plaintiff lacked due diligence to identify National as the priority insurer, so she was precluded from seeking benefits from National or Farmers, and USAA was next in priority.

2023National moved for reconsideration of both orders, arguing that under Griffin v Trumbull Ins Co, 334 Mich App 1 ; 964 NW2d 63 (2020), rev’d in part 509 Mich 484 (2022), plaintiff lacked due diligence to identify National as the priority insurer, so she was precluded from seeking benefits from National or Farmers, and USAA was next in priority.

2023National moved for reconsideration of both orders, arguing that under Griffin v Trumbull Ins Co, 334 Mich App 1 ; 964 NW2d 63 (2020), rev’d in part 509 Mich 484 (2022), plaintiff lacked due diligence to identify National as the priority insurer, so she was precluded from seeking benefits from National or Farmers, and USAA was next in priority.

2017This Court has stated that under MCL 500.3105, there “must be a causal connection between the injury sustained and the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile and which causal connection is more than incidental, fortuitous or but for.” Detroit Med Ctr v Progressive Mich Ins Co, 302 Mich App 392, 395 ; 838 NW2d 910 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2017This Court has stated that under MCL 500.3105, there “must be a causal connection between the injury sustained and the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile and which causal connection is more than incidental, fortuitous or but for.” Detroit Med Ctr v Progressive Mich Ins Co, 302 Mich App 392, 395 ; 838 NW2d 910 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2017Kemp v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 500 Mich 245 , 252; 901 NW2d 534 (2017).

2017Kemp v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 500 Mich 245 , 252; 901 NW2d 534 (2017).

2020In Hill v City of Warren, 276 Mich App 299, 307 ; 740 NW2d 706 (2007), this Court recognized that “courts are permitted to revisit issues they previously decided.” In Hill, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification after the Michigan Supreme Court had remanded the case to the trial court and additional discovery was conducted, but the plaintiffs had not presented the motion as one seeking reconsideration under MCR 2.119.

2020In Hill v City of Warren, 276 Mich App 299, 307 ; 740 NW2d 706 (2007), this Court recognized that “courts are permitted to revisit issues they previously decided.” In Hill, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification after the Michigan Supreme Court had remanded the case to the trial court and additional discovery was conducted, but the plaintiffs had not presented the motion as one seeking reconsideration under MCR 2.119.

2020The court stated that it was instead guided by the Supreme Court’s directive in Bazzi II, 502 Mich at 410 , that it balance the equities as between Everest and Graham in deciding whether the remedy of rescission should be granted.