Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 500 / Act 218 of 1956
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3159 (2026)

Discovery.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE INSURANCE CODE OF 1956


Act 218 of 1956


500.3159 Discovery.

Sec. 3159.

    In a dispute regarding an insurer's right to discovery of facts about an injured person's earnings or about his history, condition, treatment and dates and costs of treatment, a court may enter an order for the discovery. The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to all persons having an interest, and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions and scope of the discovery. A court, in order to protect against annoyance, embarrassment or oppression, as justice requires, may enter an order refusing discovery or specifying conditions of discovery and may order payments of costs and expenses of the proceeding, including reasonable fees for the appearance of attorneys at the proceedings, as justice requires.

History: Add. 1972, Act 294, Eff. Mar. 30, 1973

PopularName Notes:

Act 218

PopularName Notes:

Essential Insurance

PopularName Notes:

No-Fault Insurance
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2023 · leading case: Muci v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 732 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Muci v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 732 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 24× “[5] It also made provisions to protect an insured from discovery practices that cause annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression in MCL 500.3159, [6] which provides: In a dispute regarding an insurer's right to discovery of facts about an injured person's earnings or about his…”
Cruz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 648 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 5× “[3] MCL 500.3159 of the no-fault act provides: In a dispute regarding an insurer's right to discovery of facts about an injured person's earnings or about his history, condition, treatment and dates and costs of treatment, a court may enter an order for discovery.”
Bronson Methodist Hosp. v. Auto-Owners Ins., 295 Mich. App. 431 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “302? The primary issue on appeal is whether defendants are permitted by the no-fault act to discover the wholesale cost to plaintiff of surgical implant products used in treating defendants’ insureds when determining whether plaintiffs charges for those surgical implant products…”
Muci v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 705 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “§ 500.3159] during litigation." Cruz, supra at 601 n.”
Durmishi v. Nat'l Cas. Co., 720 F. Supp. 2d 862 (E.D. Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3159 . The statute also states: “A court, in order to protect against annoyance, embarrassment or oppression, as justice requires, may enter an order refusing discovery or specifying conditions of discovery and may order payments of costs and expenses of…”
Cruz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 614 N.W.2d 689 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “MCL 500.3159; MSA 24.13159 allows a court to enter, upon good cause shown, an order for discovery in a dispute “regarding the insurer’s right to discovery of facts about an injured person’s earnings or about *166 Ms Mstory, condition, treatment and dates and costs of treatment.”
Indep. Bank v. Hammel Assocs., LLC, 836 N.W.2d 737 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “In the context of no-fault benefits, “good cause” under MCL 500.3159 for a trial court to limit mental or physical examinations in a dispute “may only be established by a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and eonclusory statements.”
State Farm Mut. Ins. v. Broe Rehab. Servs., Inc., 811 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “] The second section, MCL 500.3159, reads in its entirety as follows: In a dispute regarding an insurer’s right to discovery of facts about an injured person’s earnings or about his history, condition, treatment and dates and costs of treatment, a court may enter an order for…”
Felisha Newby v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “The Court also observed that Michigan’s Legislature included in the no-fault act MCL 500.3159 to protect an insured from discovery practices that cause “annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.”
Spectrum Health Hospitals v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “And finally, MCL 500.3159 provides: In a dispute regarding an insurer’s right to discovery of facts about an injured person’s earnings or about his history, condition, treatment and dates and costs of treatment, a court may enter an order for the discovery.”
Felix Ciminelli v. Home-Owners Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “” Plaintiffs appeared at one IME, but instead of appearing at the court- ordered neurosurgery IMEs or the orthopedic surgery IMEs that defendant later requested, plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter stating that his clients would only attend either a neurosurgery IME or an…”
O Aliama X Schaumann-Beltran v. Joseph Gemmete Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “3158 and MCL 500.3159 of the no-fault act, MCL 500.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.