Legal Opinion

Sibley v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided August 23, 1988No. 80207, (Calendar No. 3)PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCavanagh, J.

Several times this Court has determined whether § 3109(1) of the no-fault insurance act 1 requires various state and federal government benefits to be subtracted from no-fault benefits. In this case we must determine whether § 3109(1) applies to the benefits plaintiff received but was later required to refund under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (feca), 5 USC 8101 et seq. We hold that because plaintiff was required by law to refund the benefits he had received, those benefits were not "provided or required to be provided” and therefore should not be subtracted from the personal…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. O'Donnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Tebo v. HavlikMichigan Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Great American Insurance v. QueenMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Perez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Jarosz v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance ExchangeMichigan Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Dunn v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance ExchangeMichigan Court of Appeals · 2003
  2. Thurman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 2004
  3. Great Lakes American Life Insurance v. Citizens InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. Yerkovich v. AAAMichigan Court of Appeals · 1998
  5. Stefanie Shields v. Government Employees Hospital Association, Inc., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006

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