Cruz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Wood v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance ExchangeMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
- Turner v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1995
- Nasser v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1990
- Blakeslee v. Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1972
- Putkamer v. Transamerica Insurance Corp. of AmericaMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.