Legal Opinion

Griffith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 2005No. Docket 122286PublishedCited by 142 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCorrigan, J.

In this case, we consider whether the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., requires defendant, a no-fault insurer, to reimburse plaintiff for her incapacitated husband’s food expenses. Because the food in this case is neither “for accidental bodily injury” under MCL 500.3105(1) nor “for an injured person’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation” under MCL 500.3107(l)(a), we hold that the expenses for it may not be recovered under those provisions of the no-fault act. We thus reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I. UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 28, 1994, plaintiffs…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. King v. St. Vincent's HospitalSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Shavers v. Attorney GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Koontz v. Ameritech Services, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  4. O'Donnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
  5. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Old Republic InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by142 opinions

  1. Rovas v. SBC MichiganMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
  2. In Re Complaint of Rovas Against SbcMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Johnson v. ReccaMichigan Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Robinson v. City of LansingMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Cameron v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 2006

137 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