Legal Opinion

Perez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 12, 1984No. 67122, (Calendar No. 13)PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLevin, J.

(for reversal). The question presented is whether amounts required to be paid as workers’ compensation that have not been and will not be provided to a worker injured in a motor vehicle accident because the employer did not have workers’ compensation coverage are required to be subtracted from work-loss benefits otherwise required to be paid under the no-fault automobile liability act. The Court of Appeals held that the amount so payable but not paid is required to be subtracted from work-loss benefits by § 3109(1) of the no-fault act; one judge dissented. Perez v State Farm Mutual Automobile…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Shavers v. Attorney GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
  2. City of Grand Rapids v. CrockerMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
  3. O'Donnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Mathis v. Interstate Motor Freight SystemMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Miller v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1981

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Marquis v. Hartford Accident & IndemnityMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Popma v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n.Michigan Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Boscaglia v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Tousignant v. Allstate InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Sibley v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance ExchangeMichigan Supreme Court · 1988

46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API