Legal Opinion · Dissent

Muci v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 2007No. Docket 129388Published

1DissentKelly, J.

MCL 500.3151 and MCR 2.311 do not conflict. Rather, they can and should be *195read together. Accordingly, during plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action, when defendant sought a court order that instructed plaintiff to submit to a physical examination under MCL 500.3151, the court properly issued such an order. The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing various conditions in the order pursuant to MCR 2.311. Accordingly, I dissent from the majority opinion, which holds to the contrary, and would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Muci v State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co, 267 Mich…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. McDougall v. SchanzMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Turner v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Cruz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Burton v. Reed City Hospital Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Costa v. Community Emergency Medical Services, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2006

4 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