Hicks v. Vaught
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
Plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter plaintiff) sued defendant claiming serious impairment of a body function, MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1). The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition. At the motion for summary disposition, plaintiff claimed that her complaint could be read as alleging an intentionally caused harm, MCL 500.3135(2)(a); MSA 14.13135(2)(a), thereby allowing her to recover in a tort action even though she had not met the no-fault threshold. The trial court rejected plaintiff’s argument. Thereafter plaintiff moved for rehearing on the no-fault threshold…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- DiFranco v. PickardMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
- Rathbun v. Starr Commonwealth for BoysMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
- Frechen v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance ExchangeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
3Cited by6 opinions
- American Alternative Ins. Co., Inc. v. YorkMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
- Gray v. ChrostowskiMichigan Court of Appeals · 2012
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. BenoreDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2015
- 330 S Cedar Street LLC v. Carl ScholzMichigan Court of Appeals · 2017
- American Alternative Ins. Co., Inc. v. YorkMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.