Legal Opinion

Schultz v. Auto-Owners Insurance

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided July 19, 1995No. Docket 160289PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

This is a claim for no-fault insurance benefits. Plaintiff appeals by leave granted 1 from an order of summary disposition for defendant. MCR 2.116(0(10). We affirm.

Defendant denied insurance coverage for plaintiffs lost wages and medical bills. Plaintiff first argües that defendant applied an incorrect standard when determining the cause of his injuries in ruling that he had acted intentionally. MCL 500.3105(4); MSA 24.13105(4).

i

Even if defendant relied upon an incorrect standard, it is not reason to disturb the trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition. The record indicates that…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Group Insurance v. CzopekMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Meretta v. PeachMichigan Court of Appeals · 1992
  3. Peterfish v. FrantzMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
  4. Barlow v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Mattson v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1989

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Miller v. Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1996
  2. Amerisure Insurance v. Auto-Owners InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
  3. Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. City of Detroit v. StateMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
  5. University Rehabilitation Alliance, Inc. v. Farm Bureau General InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 2008

8 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