Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hardrick v. Auto Club Insurance

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided December 1, 2011No. Docket Nos. 294875, 298661, and 299070Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMarkey, J.

I agree with the majority that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an unjust and disproportionate discovery sanction and that, therefore, the judgment for attendant care and attorney fees must be vacated and this case remanded for a new trial. I respectfully disagree, however, that agency rates are relevant to determining a reasonable charge for attendant care provided by family members under the no-fault insurance act. MCL 500.3107(1)(a). I find persuasive the discussion on this issue in Bonkowski v Allstate Ins Co, 281 Mich App 154, 164-165; 761 NW2d 784 (2008). I would hold…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Craig v. Oakwood HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Sniecinski v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of MichiganMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Griffith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Nasser v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Advocacy Organization for Patients & Providers v. Auto Club InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 2003

21 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