Posts from September 2014.
Insurers should consider how the implications of the one-year back rule in Michigan PIP cases could limit their ability to seek reimbursement from other carriers
Comments
Did the driver's actions create an "unreasonable risk" to others in this trucking liability case?
Topics
- No Fault Liability
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Transportation
- Trucking Liability
- Appellate Law
- Civil Litigation
- Cargo Liability
- Auto Liability
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
- Artificial Intelligence
- Insurance
- Fraud Activity
- Underinsured Motorist Insurance (UIM)
- Negligence
- insurance policy
- Sanctions
- Premises Liability
- Coronavirus
- COVID-19
- Judicial Estoppel
- Retail Liability
- Driver Exclusion
- Bankruptcy
- Risk Management
- Governmental Immunity
- Medicare Issues
Recent Updates
- What Canty v Mason Means for Michigan Auto Accident Defendants and Insurers
- Appellate Court Rules ‘Novel’ Pain Treatment Fails to Meet Reasonableness, Necessity Requirements for Payment of Michigan No-Fault Benefits
- How Truck Driver Monitoring with AI Technology is Reshaping Accident Litigation
- Ruling Clarifies Application of Michigan No-Fault Act’s Fee Schedule for Motorcycle Accident Claims Regardless of When Policy was Issued
- Michigan Supreme Court Denies Plaintiff’s Push to Retroactively Apply Amended No-Fault Act
- Michigan Appeals Court Affirms Key Limits on Underinsured Motorist Coverage
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Limits Scope of Preemption Governing Freight Broker’s Selection of Motor Carrier
- Fee Schedule Applies to Third-Party Claims for Excess Allowable Expenses
- Appellate Court Rules Insured Entitled to Unlimited Attendant Care Benefits
- Case Update: Appellate Court Updates Recent Decision to Published Status, Expanding Definition of ‘Unlawful’ Under Michigan PIP Law
