Legal Opinion

Rose v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided May 14, 2007No. Docket 262606PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendants, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), Titan Insurance Company (Titan), and Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers), appeal as of right a declaratory judgment allowing for future personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits for plaintiff, Dinah Rose. We reverse and remand for a new tried on the issue of future benefits. On remand, in accordance with Manley v Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exch, 425 Mich 140; 388 NW2d 216 (1986), the jury must specifically determine what future benefits are reasonable and necessary given the facts and circumstances of the case.

I.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Case v. Consumers Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Nasser v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Manley v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance ExchangeMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Hamade v. Sunoco, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2006
  5. Manley v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance ExchangeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1983

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Jimkoski v. ShupeMichigan Court of Appeals · 2008
  2. Dawe v. Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Associates, PCMichigan Court of Appeals · 2010
  3. Begin v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Central Michigan University TrusteesMichigan Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. McCormack v. Scottsdale InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2015

11 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