Copus v. Meemic Insurance
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtRonayne Krause, J.
Defendant appeals by right an order granting summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10) in favor of plaintiff and denying it to defendant. This case involves computation of work-loss benefits under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq. We affirm.
Plaintiff was injured in a serious automobile accident and sought wage-loss benefits from defendant, her insurer. Plaintiffs wage-loss benefit under the no-fault act is governed by MCL 500.3107(l)(b), which provides that personal protection insurance benefits are payable for
[w]ork loss consisting of loss of income from work an injured person…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Maiden v. RozwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Danse Corp. v. City of Madison HeightsMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
- Title Office, Inc. v. Van Buren County TreasurerMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
- Gobler v. Auto-Owners InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1987
- People v. SwaffordMichigan Supreme Court · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hannay v. Department of TransportationMichigan Court of Appeals · 2013