Gray v. Chrostowski
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting defendant partial summaiy disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10). The trial court granted defendant’s motion after concluding that plaintiffs cause of action was barred under MCL 500.3135(2)(c), a provi*771sion of the no-fault act, because plaintiffs vehicle was uninsured at the time defendant is alleged to have intentionally driven his vehicle into plaintiffs vehicle causing an accident that resulted in damages. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Maiden v. RozwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Roberts v. Mecosta County General HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
- Robertson v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2002
- Klooster v. City of CharlevoixMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
- Driver v. NainiMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- DIALLO v. LaROCHELLEMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
- Prime Time International Distributing Inc v. Dept of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 2017
- RBS Citizens Bank, N.A. v. PurtherDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2014
- Adora Wilmore-Moody v. Mohammed ZakirMichigan Court of Appeals · 2021
- Bronson Health Care Group Inc v. Usaa Casualty Insurance CompanyMichigan Court of Appeals · 2020
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.