14 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Detroit Medical Center v. Progressive Michigan Insurancegreen2 sentences2025“The ‘involvement of a vehicle’ standard, which sets forth the priority of potential insurers’ liability for no-fault benefits, ‘encompasses a broader causal nexus between the use of the vehicle and the damage’ than is required under the ‘arising out of’ standard under MCL 500.3105(1).” Detroit Med Ctr v Progressive Mich Ins Co, 302 Mich App 392 , 396 n 1; 838 NW2d 910 (2013) (citation omitted). 2025“The ‘involvement of a vehicle’ standard, which sets forth the priority of potential insurers’ liability for no-fault benefits, ‘encompasses a broader causal nexus between the use of the vehicle and the damage’ than is required under the ‘arising out of’ standard under MCL 500.3105(1).” Detroit Med Ctr v Progressive Mich Ins Co, 302 Mich App 392 , 396 n 1; 838 NW2d 910 (2013) (citation omitted). | 2 | 3 |
Auto Club Ins. Ass'n v. STATE AUTO. MUT. INS. CO.green2 sentences2017See also Underhill v Safeco Ins Co, 407 Mich 175, 185-186 ; 284 NW2d 463 (1979); Auto Club Ins Ass’n v State Auto Mut Ins Co, 258 Mich App 328, 331 ; 671 NW2d 132 (2003) (“For a motorcyclist to be entitled to no-fault PIP benefits, the motorcycle accident must involve a motor vehicle.”), citing MCL 500.3105.6 MCL 500.3114(5) is relevant in determining whether a motorcyclist is entitled to recover no-fault benefits, but this subsection is only considered after 3 MCL 500.3114(5) provides that “[a] person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident which shows evidenc 2017See also Underhill v Safeco Ins Co, 407 Mich 175, 185-186 ; 284 NW2d 463 (1979); Auto Club Ins Ass’n v State Auto Mut Ins Co, 258 Mich App 328, 331 ; 671 NW2d 132 (2003) (“For a motorcyclist to be entitled to no-fault PIP benefits, the motorcycle accident must involve a motor vehicle.”), citing MCL 500.3105.6 MCL 500.3114(5) is relevant in determining whether a motorcyclist is entitled to recover no-fault benefits, but this subsection is only considered after 3 MCL 500.3114(5) provides that “[a] person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident which shows evidenc | 2 | 2 |
Underhill v. Safeco Insurancegreen2 sentences2017See also Underhill v Safeco Ins Co, 407 Mich 175, 185-186 ; 284 NW2d 463 (1979); Auto Club Ins Ass’n v State Auto Mut Ins Co, 258 Mich App 328, 331 ; 671 NW2d 132 (2003) (“For a motorcyclist to be entitled to no-fault PIP benefits, the motorcycle accident must involve a motor vehicle.”), citing MCL 500.3105.6 MCL 500.3114(5) is relevant in determining whether a motorcyclist is entitled to recover no-fault benefits, but this subsection is only considered after 3 MCL 500.3114(5) provides that “[a] person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident which shows evidenc 2017See also Underhill v Safeco Ins Co, 407 Mich 175, 185-186 ; 284 NW2d 463 (1979); Auto Club Ins Ass’n v State Auto Mut Ins Co, 258 Mich App 328, 331 ; 671 NW2d 132 (2003) (“For a motorcyclist to be entitled to no-fault PIP benefits, the motorcycle accident must involve a motor vehicle.”), citing MCL 500.3105.6 MCL 500.3114(5) is relevant in determining whether a motorcyclist is entitled to recover no-fault benefits, but this subsection is only considered after 3 MCL 500.3114(5) provides that “[a] person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident which shows evidenc | 2 | 2 |
Auto Club Insurance v. Great American Insurance Groupgreen1 sentence2012We therefore find Plumb to be distinguishable rather than wrongly decided with regard to this first prong of the analysis — the issue of an “unlawful taking.” Plaintiff also contends that the court in ACIA v Great American Ins Group, 800 F Supp 2d 877, 883 (ED Mich, 2011), erred in applying Plumb and by “misreading” Bronson, to find an “unlawful taking” under MCL 500.3113(a) where, as here, a motorcycle operator was injured (in that case while taking the motorcycle on a test drive). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Browder v. International Fidelity Insurance
green
2 sentences2022MCL 500.3114(5) (emphasis added). “[T]he presumption is that ‘shall’ is mandatory.” Browder v Int’l Fidelity Ins Co, 413 Mich 603, 612 ; 321 NW2d 668 (1982). 2022MCL 500.3114(5) (emphasis added). “[T]he presumption is that ‘shall’ is mandatory.” Browder v Int’l Fidelity Ins Co, 413 Mich 603, 612 ; 321 NW2d 668 (1982). | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Farm Bureau General Insurance
green
2 sentences2017MCL 500.3114(5)(a) provides: A person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident that shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle while an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim personal protection insurance benefits from insurers in the following order of priority: (a) The insurer of the owner or registrant of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. (b) The insurer of the operator of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. (c) The motor vehicle insurer of the operator of the motorcycle involved in the accident. (d) The motor vehicle in 2017MCL 500.3114(5)(a) provides: A person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident that shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle while an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim personal protection insurance benefits from insurers in the following order of priority: (a) The insurer of the owner or registrant of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. (b) The insurer of the operator of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. (c) The motor vehicle insurer of the operator of the motorcycle involved in the accident. (d) The motor vehicle in | 3 | 2017–2020 |
Corwin v. DaimlerChrysler Insurance
green
2 sentences2024This subsection does not apply to a passenger in any of the following, unless the passenger is not entitled to personal protection insurance benefits under any other policy: * * * (3) An employee, his or her spouse, or a relative of either domiciled in the same household, who suffers accidental bodily injury while an occupant of a motor vehicle owned or registered by the employer, shall receive personal protection insurance benefits to which the employee is entitled from the insurer of the furnished vehicle. -3- * * * (5) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), a person who suffers accidental bodi 2024This subsection does not apply to a passenger in any of the following, unless the passenger is not entitled to personal protection insurance benefits under any other policy: * * * (3) An employee, his or her spouse, or a relative of either domiciled in the same household, who suffers accidental bodily injury while an occupant of a motor vehicle owned or registered by the employer, shall receive personal protection insurance benefits to which the employee is entitled from the insurer of the furnished vehicle. -3- * * * (5) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), a person who suffers accidental bodi | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Skinner v. Square D Co.
green
2 sentences2020We must give effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a statute, avoiding a construction that would render any part of the statute nugatory or surplusage. [Citations omitted.] The no-fault act underwent a major overhaul in 2019 PA 21 , effective June 11, 2019, but at the time of the accident, MCL 500.3114(5) provided: A person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident that shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle while an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim personal protection insurance benefits from insurers in the following order of 2020We must give effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a statute, avoiding a construction that would render any part of the statute nugatory or surplusage. [Citations omitted.] The no-fault act underwent a major overhaul in 2019 PA 21 , effective June 11, 2019, but at the time of the accident, MCL 500.3114(5) provided: A person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident that shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle while an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim personal protection insurance benefits from insurers in the following order of | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Farmers Ins. Exchange v. AAA of Michigan
green
2 sentences2015MCL 500.3114 provides in relevant part as follows: (1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (5), a personal protection insurance policy described in section 3101(1) applies to accidental bodily injury to the person named in the policy, the person's spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household, if the injury arises from a motor vehicle accident. ... (5) A person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident which shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle while an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim personal prote 2015MCL 500.3114 provides in relevant part as follows: (1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (5), a personal protection insurance policy described in section 3101(1) applies to accidental bodily injury to the person named in the policy, the person's spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household, if the injury arises from a motor vehicle accident. ... (5) A person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident which shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle while an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim personal prote | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Rambin v. Allstate Insurance
green
1 sentence2014The Court of Appeals further stated that there was no dispute that Rambin had not taken the motorcycle in violation of the Michigan Penal Code, MCL 750.1 et seq., and that from his perspective, there had been no unlawful taking. 297 Mich App 679 (2012). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Stonewall Insurance Group v. Farmers Insurance Group
green
2 sentences1989II The appeals in this case require construction of subsections 5 and 6 of § 3114 of the Michigan no-fault automobile insurance statute, MCL 500.3114(5), (6); MSA 24.13114(5), (6): (5) A person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident which shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle while an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim personal protection insurance benefits from insurers in the following order of priority: (a) The insurer of the owner or registrant of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. (b) The insurer of the operator of t 1989II The appeals in this case require construction of subsections 5 and 6 of § 3114 of the Michigan no-fault automobile insurance statute, MCL 500.3114(5), (6); MSA 24.13114(5), (6): (5) A person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident which shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle while an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim personal protection insurance benefits from insurers in the following order of priority: (a) The insurer of the owner or registrant of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. (b) The insurer of the operator of t | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.