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?
Subscribe
RSSTopics
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Transportation
- No Fault Liability
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
- Trucking Liability
- Auto Liability
- Appellate Law
- Insurance
- Fraud Activity
- insurance policy
- Civil Litigation
- Sanctions
- Premises Liability
- Coronavirus
- COVID-19
- Cargo Liability
- Judicial Estoppel
- Retail Liability
- Driver Exclusion
- Bankruptcy
- Risk Management
- Public Policy
- Governmental Immunity
- Environmental Legislation
- Environmental Regulation
- Medicare Issues
Recent Updates
- 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
- Having a ‘Cowboy Attitude' About No-Fault Insurance Limits Could Cost You
- How well do you Know Your Policyholders? Recent Appellate Case Encourages Full Discovery of Potential Rescission During Litigation
- Published Opinion Warns Insurers that Medical Claims can Survive MCL 500.3145 Indefinitely Without an Appropriate Denial
- Michigan Court of Appeals Outlines Several Important Defenses in Family Member Provided Attendant Care Cases
- Michigan Appellate Courts Help Define ‘Sudden Emergency’ in Motor Vehicle Liability Cases
- Post-Judgement Collection Techniques for Insurers
- Are Case Evaluation Sanctions Gone Baby, Gone?