Legal Opinion

Armisted v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided April 12, 2012No. 09-2055, 09-2113PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs are six individuals who suffered catastrophic, traumatic brain injuries as the result of automobile accidents. They seek payment of no-fault insurance benefits for the cost of home attendant care services they have received. As plaintiffs’ first-party insurer, defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) initially paid benefits at the rates plaintiffs requested but later reduced the rates on the basis of market surveys of the cost of the services. State Farm then refused to raise the rates to the earlier level because it…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
  3. Catlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  4. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Van Cauwenberghe v. BiardSupreme Court of the United States · 1988

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Theresa Waldo v. Consumers Energy CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
  2. Carrie Braun v. Ultimate JetchartersCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016
  3. CFE Racing Products, Inc. v. BMF Wheels, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015
  4. Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N2G Distributing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
  5. Lorie Applebaum v. Target CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016

42 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