Legal Opinion · Dissent

McKelvie v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1998No. Docket 110215Published

1DissentKelly, J.

The majority’s holding effectively permits defendant to circumvent the Legislature’s intent in enacting MCL 500.3148(1); MSA 24.13148(1). That intent was to discourage insurance companies, so disposed, from unreasonably withholding personal protection insurance (pip) benefits from their insureds until ordered to pay them by a court. The discouragement was in the form of an award of attorney fees to insureds obliged to sue to recover pip benefits to which they were entitled. The penalty provision sought to force insurers to promptly pay their insureds. Beach v State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Beach v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1996
  2. Bloemsma v. Auto Club InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Smolen v. Dahlmann Apartments, LtdMichigan Court of Appeals · 1990
  4. McKelvie v. Auto Club InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API