Michigan’s no-fault insurance benefits, especially Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits, are among the most favorable to claimants. Michigan law requires no-fault insurance for every vehicle owner. This insurance pays for medical expenses, wage loss benefits, replacement services, and damages to other people’s property, no matter who caused the accident. These provisions make Michigan’s no-fault coverage attractive to injured claimants when insurance coverage may not otherwise be available or fault may be difficult to establish, as shown by a recent case decided by Michigan Court of …Continue Reading
The 2015 holiday season might be a bit tense for a mother-daughter team ordered to pay restitution to their insurer for fraud and misrepresentation. Secura Ins. v. Thomas, 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 2230 (Mich. App. December 1, 2015). While restitution was owed for the wrongful acts, the court held joint and several liability did not apply to frauds in which a party (the daughter) was not directly involved. This case presents an example an insurer performing excellent due diligence in discovering fraud, and a …Continue Reading
Maryland, home of the Chesapeake Bay, brings to mind the aphorism, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Maryland has joined the rising tide of states that have adopted a proximate cause standard to determine when an additional insured is entitled to coverage for injuries “caused, in whole or in part, by” another’s acts or omissions. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals’ October 28, 2015 decision in James G. Davis Construction Corp. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, marks …Continue Reading
On September 29, 2015, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a directed verdict granted to an insurance agent, Jervis-Fehtke (Jervis), on a professional negligence claim brought by a property owner, Williams, as a result of damage to Williams’ rental property caused by fire.
After a gas explosion destroyed Williams rental property, Williams submitted a claim to her insurer, Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Auto Owner). Auto-Owners denied the claim because Williams’ policy did not cover losses caused by explosions originating from outside of the property. Williams, appearing …Continue Reading
The recent case of Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Yahia Motan & Motan Yahia reminds all practitioners of the importance of accurate responses in insurance applications. Auto-Owners addressed the issue of misrepresentations made in commercial insurance policies. 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 1659 (MI App. 1st Dist. 2015). Decided on September 8, 2015, the Michigan Appellate Court found in favor of the insurer, finding that it relied on the insured’s misrepresentations made in the application to justify cancellation and rescission.
Najieb Jabbar, an agent of Motan …Continue Reading