Legal Opinion · Dissent

DeMeglio v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 20, 1995No. 98197, (Calendar No. 1)Published

1DissentCavanagh, J.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion because I believe that foreign no-fault benefits fall outside the intended scope of § 3109(1) benefits.

The Michigan no-fault act,1 in my view, dictates this result. It is axiomatic.that Michigan no-fault benefits are not § 3109(1) benefits.2 No compelling statutory basis exists to conclude that foreign no-fault benefits must be treated as § 3109(1) benefits. The Legislature drafted a specific provision to deal with liability issues that may arise when an out-of-state resident, who is insured under a private *50automobile insurance policy,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Parks v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance ExchangeMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Department of Social Services v. American Commercial Liability InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Kriko v. Allstate Insurance Co. of CanadaMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. Bach v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
  5. Transport Insurance v. Home InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984

6 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