Appellate Decisions and Insurance Litigation Analysis
|
The Law Review of Abboo & Associates PLLC provides analysis of significant appellate decisions affecting insurers, corporations, and litigators.
This page provides ongoing analysis of Michigan appellate decisions impacting no-fault insurance, negligence, and high-exposure litigation. These case updates are intended for insurers, adjusters, and attorneys handling Michigan insurance defense and priority disputes. |
Northland v. Allstate (3/25/26)
Copeland v. Allstate (3/16/26) Swoope v. Citizens (3/10/26) Davis v. Baldini (3/10/26) Mary Free Bed v. Esurance 3/2/26) Maksym v. Auto-Owners (2/24/26) Leiendecker v. Ascension (1/13/26) Swanson v. Bittersweet (1/9/26) |
Michigan Court of Appeals: Defective PIP Opt-Out Triggers Unlimited Exposure Under MCL 500.3107d
The Michigan Court of Appeals, in Northland Radiology v Allstate (March 25, 2026) (published, Case No. 374214), addressed the effect of a defective opt-out election under MCL 500.3107d on PIP coverage.
In this case, the named insured elected to opt out of PIP medical coverage, but a resident relative did not have the required qualifying coverage, despite representations to the contrary, rendering the election defective.
The Court applied a strict statutory interpretation, holding that if any statutory condition is not satisfied, the opt-out is ineffective and the policy is treated as providing unlimited PIP medical coverage.
In doing so, the decision adopts a strict reading of the statutory requirements governing opt-out elections and materially expands the exposure contemplated at policy formation. While this approach provides clarity in the application of the statute, it results in a divergence between the risk assessed at underwriting and the exposure imposed at the time of loss, producing outcomes not contemplated at the time of policy issuance.
The decision leaves open the availability of fraud and rescission-based defenses, which will likely become central in subsequent litigation, with counterarguments focusing on the application of the innocent third-party doctrine.
This decision is likely to reshape both underwriting practices and post-loss litigation strategy in PIP claims involving opt-out elections.
The Michigan Court of Appeals, in Northland Radiology v Allstate (March 25, 2026) (published, Case No. 374214), addressed the effect of a defective opt-out election under MCL 500.3107d on PIP coverage.
In this case, the named insured elected to opt out of PIP medical coverage, but a resident relative did not have the required qualifying coverage, despite representations to the contrary, rendering the election defective.
The Court applied a strict statutory interpretation, holding that if any statutory condition is not satisfied, the opt-out is ineffective and the policy is treated as providing unlimited PIP medical coverage.
In doing so, the decision adopts a strict reading of the statutory requirements governing opt-out elections and materially expands the exposure contemplated at policy formation. While this approach provides clarity in the application of the statute, it results in a divergence between the risk assessed at underwriting and the exposure imposed at the time of loss, producing outcomes not contemplated at the time of policy issuance.
The decision leaves open the availability of fraud and rescission-based defenses, which will likely become central in subsequent litigation, with counterarguments focusing on the application of the innocent third-party doctrine.
This decision is likely to reshape both underwriting practices and post-loss litigation strategy in PIP claims involving opt-out elections.
Copeland v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (March 16, 2026) (Domicile and Homelessness)
Michigan Court of Appeals decision addressing domicile and priority under the No-Fault Act.
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that domicile cannot be assigned by default merely because a claimant lacks an alternative residence, including in cases involving homelessness or transience. The Court rejected assigning domicile to a last known household based solely on the absence of a fixed residence for purposes of no-fault priority.
Instead, domicile must be determined under the Workman/Dairyland framework based on objective evidence of actual living arrangements and intent. Where the evidence does not definitively establish a single domicile, the issue remains a question of fact for the jury and is not appropriate for summary disposition.
This decision makes clear that priority disputes involving transient or homeless claimants will often turn on fact-intensive inquiries, limiting early resolution and increasing exposure in no-fault cases, until the legislature or higher court reviews the matter.
Michigan Court of Appeals decision addressing domicile and priority under the No-Fault Act.
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that domicile cannot be assigned by default merely because a claimant lacks an alternative residence, including in cases involving homelessness or transience. The Court rejected assigning domicile to a last known household based solely on the absence of a fixed residence for purposes of no-fault priority.
Instead, domicile must be determined under the Workman/Dairyland framework based on objective evidence of actual living arrangements and intent. Where the evidence does not definitively establish a single domicile, the issue remains a question of fact for the jury and is not appropriate for summary disposition.
This decision makes clear that priority disputes involving transient or homeless claimants will often turn on fact-intensive inquiries, limiting early resolution and increasing exposure in no-fault cases, until the legislature or higher court reviews the matter.
Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies “Unlawful Taking” Bar to No-Fault Benefits
Swoope v. Citizens Insurance Co. of the Midwest, Michigan Supreme Court (March 10, 2026)
The Michigan Supreme Court recently clarified the proper interpretation of the unlawful-taking exclusion under Michigan’s No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3113(a).
The Court emphasized a critical distinction: the statute focuses on whether the vehicle was taken unlawfully, not whether it was operated unlawfully. Accordingly, unlawful operation alone, including driving without a valid license, does not automatically disqualify a claimant from recovering PIP benefits. The relevant inquiry is whether the claimant obtained possession of the vehicle unlawfully and knew or should have known that the taking was unlawful.
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals after concluding that the lower court had focused on the plaintiff’s unlawful operation of the vehicle rather than the statutory question of whether the vehicle had been unlawfully taken. The case was remanded for further proceedings addressing that issue.
The decision reinforces the statutory boundaries of MCL 500.3113(a). Courts must apply the statute as written, even where the outcome may appear difficult to reconcile with broader notions of fairness or accountability. Under the current framework, it remains possible for an unlicensed driver to recover PIP benefits even where that driver’s conduct contributes to serious injury.
Cases like this may prompt a broader policy discussion. The Legislature may wish to consider whether Michigan’s No-Fault Act should expressly bar PIP recovery by individuals operating a motor vehicle without a valid license, particularly in cases involving catastrophic injury to others.
Swoope v. Citizens Insurance Co. of the Midwest, Michigan Supreme Court (March 10, 2026)
The Michigan Supreme Court recently clarified the proper interpretation of the unlawful-taking exclusion under Michigan’s No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3113(a).
The Court emphasized a critical distinction: the statute focuses on whether the vehicle was taken unlawfully, not whether it was operated unlawfully. Accordingly, unlawful operation alone, including driving without a valid license, does not automatically disqualify a claimant from recovering PIP benefits. The relevant inquiry is whether the claimant obtained possession of the vehicle unlawfully and knew or should have known that the taking was unlawful.
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals after concluding that the lower court had focused on the plaintiff’s unlawful operation of the vehicle rather than the statutory question of whether the vehicle had been unlawfully taken. The case was remanded for further proceedings addressing that issue.
The decision reinforces the statutory boundaries of MCL 500.3113(a). Courts must apply the statute as written, even where the outcome may appear difficult to reconcile with broader notions of fairness or accountability. Under the current framework, it remains possible for an unlicensed driver to recover PIP benefits even where that driver’s conduct contributes to serious injury.
Cases like this may prompt a broader policy discussion. The Legislature may wish to consider whether Michigan’s No-Fault Act should expressly bar PIP recovery by individuals operating a motor vehicle without a valid license, particularly in cases involving catastrophic injury to others.
Michigan Court of Appeals Clarifies Constructive Ownership Under the No-Fault Act
Davis v Baldini, Michigan Court of Appeals (March 10, 2026)
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently clarified how courts should analyze constructive ownership of a motor vehicle under Michigan’s No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3101.
The Court emphasized that ownership under the statute requires proprietary or possessory use consistent with concepts of ownership for more than 30 days, not merely regular or incidental use of another person’s vehicle. The inquiry focuses on whether the driver exercised control and personal use resembling ownership, rather than limited use with permission.
The Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition after concluding that the record permitted competing inferences about the nature of the plaintiff’s vehicle use. Although the plaintiff regularly drove her daughter to and from work, the evidence also suggested that the use was limited to facilitating the daughter’s commute and did not include personal errands, commuting, or other ownership-like control.
Because the evidence could support either incidental use or proprietary use, the Court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding constructive ownership, making summary disposition improper.
The decision reinforces that constructive ownership under the No-Fault Act is a fact-intensive inquiry. Regular use of a vehicle does not automatically render a driver an “owner” for purposes of the uninsured-owner bar under MCL 500.3135(2)(c). Courts must examine the nature, scope, and purpose of the vehicle’s use before applying the statutory bar to tort recovery.
Davis v Baldini, Michigan Court of Appeals (March 10, 2026)
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently clarified how courts should analyze constructive ownership of a motor vehicle under Michigan’s No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3101.
The Court emphasized that ownership under the statute requires proprietary or possessory use consistent with concepts of ownership for more than 30 days, not merely regular or incidental use of another person’s vehicle. The inquiry focuses on whether the driver exercised control and personal use resembling ownership, rather than limited use with permission.
The Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition after concluding that the record permitted competing inferences about the nature of the plaintiff’s vehicle use. Although the plaintiff regularly drove her daughter to and from work, the evidence also suggested that the use was limited to facilitating the daughter’s commute and did not include personal errands, commuting, or other ownership-like control.
Because the evidence could support either incidental use or proprietary use, the Court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding constructive ownership, making summary disposition improper.
The decision reinforces that constructive ownership under the No-Fault Act is a fact-intensive inquiry. Regular use of a vehicle does not automatically render a driver an “owner” for purposes of the uninsured-owner bar under MCL 500.3135(2)(c). Courts must examine the nature, scope, and purpose of the vehicle’s use before applying the statutory bar to tort recovery.
Michigan Court of Appeals Landmark Decision Permitting Overflow Priority Coverage
Mary Free Bed v Esurance and USAA (March 2, 2026, Docket No. 370846).
The Michigan Court of Appeals issued a landmark published opinion on March 2, 2026, that materially impacts PIP exposure under the Michigan No-Fault Act following the 2019 reforms. In Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital v. Esurance and USAA, the Court held as follows:
"This case presents a question of first impression: whether such an injured person or their treatment provider, once their expenses exhaust and exceed a $250,000 coverage limit in the policy of a higher-priority insurer, may move down the priority list and claim additional benefits from a lower-priority insurer that provides unlimited coverage. The answer to that question, we hold today, is yes."
Prior to the 2019 reforms, this was not a question, as all PIP benefits were unlimited and priority dictated which single insurer would be responsible. Here, the Court has effectively permitted an overflow to the next priority level. That result is unprecedented and will very likely be examined by the Michigan Supreme Court.
Unless modified on further appeal, carriers and attorneys should reassess how capped elections interact with downstream priority exposure in each claim.
Mary Free Bed v Esurance and USAA (March 2, 2026, Docket No. 370846).
The Michigan Court of Appeals issued a landmark published opinion on March 2, 2026, that materially impacts PIP exposure under the Michigan No-Fault Act following the 2019 reforms. In Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital v. Esurance and USAA, the Court held as follows:
"This case presents a question of first impression: whether such an injured person or their treatment provider, once their expenses exhaust and exceed a $250,000 coverage limit in the policy of a higher-priority insurer, may move down the priority list and claim additional benefits from a lower-priority insurer that provides unlimited coverage. The answer to that question, we hold today, is yes."
Prior to the 2019 reforms, this was not a question, as all PIP benefits were unlimited and priority dictated which single insurer would be responsible. Here, the Court has effectively permitted an overflow to the next priority level. That result is unprecedented and will very likely be examined by the Michigan Supreme Court.
Unless modified on further appeal, carriers and attorneys should reassess how capped elections interact with downstream priority exposure in each claim.
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS (February 24, 2026) - Maksym et al v. Auto-Owners (Docket No. 372827).
Michigan Court of Appeals clarifies Cantina, appraisals, and the one year statute of limitations at MCL 500.2833(1)(q) concerning tolling.
The Michigan Court of Appeals addresses the relationship between appraisal, coverage disputes, and the one-year limitation period under MCL 500.2833(1)(q), clarifying the scope of Cantina Enterprises II. The Court held that tolling continues until liability is formally and unequivocally denied, partial payments do not constitute an admission of liability for disputed claim categories, and appraisal is required only when coverage is admitted and the remaining dispute concerns the amount of loss.
Michigan Court of Appeals clarifies Cantina, appraisals, and the one year statute of limitations at MCL 500.2833(1)(q) concerning tolling.
The Michigan Court of Appeals addresses the relationship between appraisal, coverage disputes, and the one-year limitation period under MCL 500.2833(1)(q), clarifying the scope of Cantina Enterprises II. The Court held that tolling continues until liability is formally and unequivocally denied, partial payments do not constitute an admission of liability for disputed claim categories, and appraisal is required only when coverage is admitted and the remaining dispute concerns the amount of loss.
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS (January 13, 2026) - Leiendecker v. Ascension (Docket No. 372252).
Michigan Court of Appeals Addresses Wild Animal Liability on Commercial Property, Emphasizing the Role of Notice.
On January 13, 2026, in a decision recommended for publication, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued important guidance on liability exposure arising from wild animal encounters on commercial premises. In Leiendecker v. Ascension Genesys Hospital (No. 372252), the plaintiff, a contractor at a hospital facility, was allegedly attacked and knocked to the ground by a goose while exiting the property, resulting in a fractured hip and subsequent surgery. The Court reaffirmed the long-standing doctrine of ferae naturae, holding that property owners and contractors are not liable in ordinary negligence for injuries caused by wild animals absent dominion, control, or possession of the animal itself. At the same time, the Court drew a critical distinction for premises liability claims. Where a wild animal’s presence constitutes a known, ongoing dangerous condition on the land, and the landowner allegedly fails to warn or take reasonable protective measures for invitees, a premises liability claim may survive at the pleading stage. The decision reinforces that early dispositive motion practice remains a powerful defense tool in wildlife-related injury cases, while underscoring the importance of knowledge, notice, and response protocols for property owners and risk managers.
Michigan Court of Appeals Addresses Wild Animal Liability on Commercial Property, Emphasizing the Role of Notice.
On January 13, 2026, in a decision recommended for publication, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued important guidance on liability exposure arising from wild animal encounters on commercial premises. In Leiendecker v. Ascension Genesys Hospital (No. 372252), the plaintiff, a contractor at a hospital facility, was allegedly attacked and knocked to the ground by a goose while exiting the property, resulting in a fractured hip and subsequent surgery. The Court reaffirmed the long-standing doctrine of ferae naturae, holding that property owners and contractors are not liable in ordinary negligence for injuries caused by wild animals absent dominion, control, or possession of the animal itself. At the same time, the Court drew a critical distinction for premises liability claims. Where a wild animal’s presence constitutes a known, ongoing dangerous condition on the land, and the landowner allegedly fails to warn or take reasonable protective measures for invitees, a premises liability claim may survive at the pleading stage. The decision reinforces that early dispositive motion practice remains a powerful defense tool in wildlife-related injury cases, while underscoring the importance of knowledge, notice, and response protocols for property owners and risk managers.
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS (January 9, 2026) - Swanson v. Bittersweet Ski Resort Inc (Docket No. 366258).
Immunity and Waivers clash with Public Policy in Ski Resort Gross Liability Case - Michigan Court of Appeals.
Michigan Court of Appeals (For Publication): In a significant clarification of the scope of immunity under the Ski Area Safety Act of 1962 (SASA), the Court of Appeals held on January 9, 2026, in Swanson v. Bittersweet Ski Resort, Inc., that SASA does not extend immunity to claims of gross negligence. The Court also held that due to public policy, a waiver cannot release claims arising out of gross negligence. The Court distinguished prior decisions such as Anderson, Grieb, and Kent, where immunity applied because the injuries arose from risks inherent to the sport of skiing. Here, by contrast, the Court held that neither SASA nor a contractual waiver shields a ski resort from liability where the alleged misconduct rises to the level of gross negligence.
Immunity and Waivers clash with Public Policy in Ski Resort Gross Liability Case - Michigan Court of Appeals.
Michigan Court of Appeals (For Publication): In a significant clarification of the scope of immunity under the Ski Area Safety Act of 1962 (SASA), the Court of Appeals held on January 9, 2026, in Swanson v. Bittersweet Ski Resort, Inc., that SASA does not extend immunity to claims of gross negligence. The Court also held that due to public policy, a waiver cannot release claims arising out of gross negligence. The Court distinguished prior decisions such as Anderson, Grieb, and Kent, where immunity applied because the injuries arose from risks inherent to the sport of skiing. Here, by contrast, the Court held that neither SASA nor a contractual waiver shields a ski resort from liability where the alleged misconduct rises to the level of gross negligence.
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS (December 18, 2025) - Love v. Randolph (Docket No. 369895).
MCL 500.3114(5) under the Michigan No-Fault Act does not Require Physical Contact with a Motorcycle for Coverage to Apply according to New Michigan Court of Appeals ruling.
In Love v. Randolph, December 18, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in a published decision, clarifies motorcycle priority disputes under Michigan’s No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3114(5). Key takeaway: A motorcyclist injured in a multi-vehicle chain-reaction accident may seek PIP benefits from the insurer of a motor vehicle that actively contributed to the accident, even where that vehicle never physically contacted the motorcycle and another vehicle ultimately made impact. The Court reaffirmed that whether a vehicle is “involved in the accident” under MCL 500.3114(5) turns on a fact-intensive, causation-based analysis, not a bright-line physical-contact test, where the record supports meaningful involvement. See Love v. Randolph, 2025 Mich App LEXIS 10220.
MCL 500.3114(5) under the Michigan No-Fault Act does not Require Physical Contact with a Motorcycle for Coverage to Apply according to New Michigan Court of Appeals ruling.
In Love v. Randolph, December 18, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in a published decision, clarifies motorcycle priority disputes under Michigan’s No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3114(5). Key takeaway: A motorcyclist injured in a multi-vehicle chain-reaction accident may seek PIP benefits from the insurer of a motor vehicle that actively contributed to the accident, even where that vehicle never physically contacted the motorcycle and another vehicle ultimately made impact. The Court reaffirmed that whether a vehicle is “involved in the accident” under MCL 500.3114(5) turns on a fact-intensive, causation-based analysis, not a bright-line physical-contact test, where the record supports meaningful involvement. See Love v. Randolph, 2025 Mich App LEXIS 10220.
U.S. 6TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (December 17, 2025) - Poynter v. Bennett (Docket No. 25-5188).
Constitutional Law Claims under the 14th Amendment and Monell are Permitted where Systemic Dangers result in Undue Harm.
6th Circuit Court of Appeals: On December 17, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Poynter v. Bennett, delivered a decisive clarification of municipal liability under the U.S. Constitution, reframing how “intentional conduct” is evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983. The Court recognized that constitutional harm rarely traces back to a single rogue official; instead, liability may arise from the cumulative effect of routine practices that, taken together, create an objectively dangerous system. The ruling carries significant implications for claims involving inmate classification, supervision and monitoring, staffing decisions, suicide-prevention protocols, and systemic medical care.
Constitutional Law Claims under the 14th Amendment and Monell are Permitted where Systemic Dangers result in Undue Harm.
6th Circuit Court of Appeals: On December 17, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Poynter v. Bennett, delivered a decisive clarification of municipal liability under the U.S. Constitution, reframing how “intentional conduct” is evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983. The Court recognized that constitutional harm rarely traces back to a single rogue official; instead, liability may arise from the cumulative effect of routine practices that, taken together, create an objectively dangerous system. The ruling carries significant implications for claims involving inmate classification, supervision and monitoring, staffing decisions, suicide-prevention protocols, and systemic medical care.
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS (November 20, 2025) - McPherson v. Alten Homes (Docket No. 368756).
Refining Settlement Release Language.
Last week's published Court of Appeals decision in McPherson v. Alten Homes, on November 20, 2025, concerning Res Judicata (Docket No. 368756), also underscores a potential issue in civil litigation in the insurance law context: release language that is either too narrow or too loosely drafted invites future risk. In McPherson, the plaintiff’s first lawsuit, filed only against an individual shareholder, was dismissed because the defendant was not the proper party. A subsequent action was then filed against the corporation and its contractors. The trial court dismissed the second case on res judicata grounds, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there was no true privity between the individual and the corporate or contractor defendants. The COA determined the earlier dismissal did not shield those additional parties under res judicata. Although McPherson arose in the res judicata context, the broader principle is instructive. When releases or dismissals do not expressly include all potentially exposed parties, litigants risk renewed or parallel litigation. The doctrine of “substantial identity of interests” remains an important and powerful defense tool, but even strong doctrines work best when supported by clear, comprehensive release language. Organizations should routinely evaluate whether their settlement agreements, hold-harmless provisions, and release templates adequately identify and protect all relevant parties, including contractors, subsidiaries, officers, agents, and insurers. Precision on the front end is far less costly than addressing gaps after litigation has resurfaced, especially for keeping costs down. If release language is not drafted carefully and broadly enough, future litigation may claw back the same insurer into future costly litigation.
Refining Settlement Release Language.
Last week's published Court of Appeals decision in McPherson v. Alten Homes, on November 20, 2025, concerning Res Judicata (Docket No. 368756), also underscores a potential issue in civil litigation in the insurance law context: release language that is either too narrow or too loosely drafted invites future risk. In McPherson, the plaintiff’s first lawsuit, filed only against an individual shareholder, was dismissed because the defendant was not the proper party. A subsequent action was then filed against the corporation and its contractors. The trial court dismissed the second case on res judicata grounds, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there was no true privity between the individual and the corporate or contractor defendants. The COA determined the earlier dismissal did not shield those additional parties under res judicata. Although McPherson arose in the res judicata context, the broader principle is instructive. When releases or dismissals do not expressly include all potentially exposed parties, litigants risk renewed or parallel litigation. The doctrine of “substantial identity of interests” remains an important and powerful defense tool, but even strong doctrines work best when supported by clear, comprehensive release language. Organizations should routinely evaluate whether their settlement agreements, hold-harmless provisions, and release templates adequately identify and protect all relevant parties, including contractors, subsidiaries, officers, agents, and insurers. Precision on the front end is far less costly than addressing gaps after litigation has resurfaced, especially for keeping costs down. If release language is not drafted carefully and broadly enough, future litigation may claw back the same insurer into future costly litigation.
|
About Abboo & Associates PLLC Abboo & Associates PLLC represents insurers and corporations in Michigan no-fault and high-exposure litigation. The firm regularly analyzes appellate decisions impacting coverage, priority, and liability issues. |