Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cruz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 17, 2002No. Docket 117505Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKelly, J.

I agree with the majority’s holding that defendant cannot make payment of personal injury protection (pip) insurance benefits contingent on plaintiff submitting to an examination under oath (EUO). However, I respectfully disagree with its conclusion that an euo provision that complied with the requirements of the no-fault act1 would be permissible.

No example has been suggested of an euo that would not conflict with the goals and purposes of the act. Therefore, I conclude that an euo provision could not comply with the requirements of the no-fault act. I would affirm the Court of Appeals…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Wood v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance ExchangeMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Turner v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Nasser v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Blakeslee v. Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Putkamer v. Transamerica Insurance Corp. of AmericaMichigan Supreme Court · 1997

9 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