THE INSURANCE CODE OF 1956
Act 218 of 1956
500.2114 Person or organization aggrieved by filing; application for hearing; specification of grounds; notice of hearing; order of commissioner.
Sec. 2114.
(1) A person or organization aggrieved with respect to any filing which is in effect and which affects the person or organization may make written application to the commissioner for a hearing on the filing. However, the insurer or rating organization which made the filing shall not be authorized to proceed under this subsection. The application shall specify the grounds to be relied upon by the applicant. If the commissioner finds that the application is made in good faith, that the applicant would be so aggrieved if the grounds specified are established, or that the grounds specified otherwise justify holding a hearing, the commissioner, not more than 30 days after receipt of the application, shall hold a hearing in accordance with Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended, upon not less than 10 days' written notice to the applicant, the insurer, and the rating organization which made the filing.
(2) If after hearing initiated under subsection (1) or upon the commissioner's own motion pursuant to Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended, the commissioner finds that a filing does not meet the requirements of sections 2109 and 2111, the commissioner shall issue an order stating the specific reasons for that finding. The order shall state when, within a reasonable time after issuance of the order, the filing shall be considered no longer effective. A copy of the order shall be sent to the applicant, if any, and to each insurer and rating organization subject to the order. The order shall not affect a contract or policy made or issued before the date the filing becomes ineffective, as indicated in the commissioner's order.
History: Add. 1979, Act 145, Eff. Jan. 1, 1981
PopularName Notes:
Act 218
PopularName Notes:
Essential Insurance
PopularName Notes:
No-Fault Insurance
Notes of Decisions
McLiechey v. Bristol West Ins., 408 F. Supp. 2d 516 (W.D. Mich. 2006).
· cites it 3× “§ 500.2114(1). If the Commissioner finds that the filing does not meet the requirements of sections 2109 and 2111, the Commissioner shall state the reasons for that finding and state when the filing “shall be considered no longer effective.”
Ins. Inst. v. Comm'r of the Off. of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 761 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 10× “B Plaintiffs assert that the rules are in excess of defendant's statutory authority, and are contrary to the legislative intent because they disallow rates without a prior hearing as required by MCL 500.2114, 500.2418, and 500.2618. The circuit court and Judge ZAHRA agree.”
Allstate Ins. v. Dep't of Ins., 491 N.W.2d 616 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
“12038, was "precluded by the terms of the enforcement section of chapter 21,” MCL 500.2114; MSA 24.12114. The commissioner appealed to this Court, arguing that the circuit court erred in reversing his order finding that Allstate violated §2027 and ordering Allstate to "refund…”
Trzeciak v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (E.D. Mich. 2021).
· cites it 2× “at 518 (quoting Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2114 (1)). It is not clear what purpose the exhaustion of any available remedies would serve in this case.”
Beatrice Alghali v. Hanover Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“Moreover, there is published caselaw expressly holding that that an employee does not need to be using the employer-furnished vehicle in the course of business for purposes of MCL 500.2114(3). In State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Hawkeye-Security Ins Co, 115 Mich App 675 , 679- 681;…”
N. Mut. Ins. Co. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co. (E.D. Mich. 2022).
“) The Michigan Court of Appeals notes that there is published caselaw expressly holding that that [sic] an employee does not need to be using the employer- furnished vehicle in the course of business for purposes of MCL 500.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2114(1): 1 case
McLiechey v. Bristol West Ins., 408 F. Supp. 2d 516 (W.D. Mich. 2006).
“§ 500.2114(1). If the Commissioner finds that the filing does not meet the requirements of sections 2109 and 2111, the Commissioner shall state the reasons for that finding and state when the filing “shall be considered no longer effective.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2114(2): 2 cases
McLiechey v. Bristol West Ins., 408 F. Supp. 2d 516 (W.D. Mich. 2006).
“§ 500.2114(1). If the Commissioner finds that the filing does not meet the requirements of sections 2109 and 2111, the Commissioner shall state the reasons for that finding and state when the filing “shall be considered no longer effective.”
Ins. Inst. v. Comm'r of the Off. of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 761 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“B Plaintiffs assert that the rules are in excess of defendant's statutory authority, and are contrary to the legislative intent because they disallow rates without a prior hearing as required by MCL 500.2114, 500.2418, and 500.2618. The circuit court and Judge ZAHRA agree.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2114(3): 2 cases
Beatrice Alghali v. Hanover Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“Moreover, there is published caselaw expressly holding that that an employee does not need to be using the employer-furnished vehicle in the course of business for purposes of MCL 500.2114(3). In State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Hawkeye-Security Ins Co, 115 Mich App 675 , 679- 681;…”
N. Mut. Ins. Co. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co. (E.D. Mich. 2022).
“) The Michigan Court of Appeals notes that there is published caselaw expressly holding that that [sic] an employee does not need to be using the employer- furnished vehicle in the course of business for purposes of MCL 500.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.