This page tracks 43 decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals interpreting the no-fault act from January 2023 through October 2026. We update it as new opinions are issued. Each holding is a short, neutral summary. Read the opinion itself before relying on it, because the facts of each case matter.
Many of these cases grew out of the 2019 reform: the fee schedule, the 56-hour family attendant care limit, PIP coverage choices and the Medicare opt-out. Others apply older rules on priority, rescission and the serious impairment threshold. Where we have a guide on the issue, the entry links to it.
Published Court of Appeals opinions are binding precedent. Unpublished opinions bind only the parties, but they show how courts are applying the law. Every Michigan Supreme Court opinion is binding.
Decisions by year
2026
Van Heusen v Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility
Uninsured and MACP
A person whose own policy opted out of PIP medical coverage under the Medicare option cannot get medical benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, even when hurt while not in a vehicle. The policy is still a PIP policy that applies to the injury, so the plan’s eligibility rules are not met.
Pena-Cruz v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co (on remand)
Benefits
When a vehicle’s owner neither allowed nor forbade a driver to take it, the court must decide whether the driver had implied permission by looking at all the circumstances, including the driver’s past use of the vehicle. The trial court’s ruling under the unlawful-taking bar in MCL 500.3113(a) was vacated and sent back.
Cooks v Citizens Insurance Co of the Midwest
Uninsured and MACP
A claimant domiciled with a sister who had a no-fault policy could not get benefits through the assigned claims plan, because that policy applied and had never been rescinded. Any dispute over the address listed on the policy was between the claimant and the sister’s insurer.
Labser PLC v Farmers Insurance Exchange
Uninsured and MACP
An injured person who had the use of an uninsured vehicle was its constructive owner and was barred from PIP benefits. His providers could not bring a direct claim under MCL 500.3112 either, because the treatment was not for an injury covered by PIP.
Canty v Mason
Threshold and tort
A person who opted out of PIP medical coverage and sues the at-fault driver for medical expenses must mitigate damages, which includes using Medicare for treatment by providers who accept it. The no-fault fee schedule in MCL 500.3157 does not cap that tort claim.
JB v Farm Bureau General Insurance Co of Michigan
Procedure
An attorney fee award under MCL 500.3148(1) was affirmed because the insurer relied on one ambiguous treatment note and did not investigate the claim. The insurer also waived its argument about compelling an expert to testify by raising a different objection in the trial court.
Frownfelter v Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Co
Priority
A custody order is only a starting point in deciding a child’s domicile for no-fault priority. Courts must weigh all the facts, including, in joint custody cases, where the child actually spends most of the time and sleeps most nights. Grange Ins Co v Lawrence was overruled to the extent it treated a custody order as conclusive.
VHS of Michigan, Inc v Farm Bureau General Insurance Co of Michigan
Benefits
An attempt to opt out of PIP medical coverage failed because the named insured did not list resident relatives or show they had qualified health coverage. The policy therefore provided unlimited PIP medical coverage to the injured relative.
Reese v Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange
Rescission and fraud
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rescind the policy as to an innocent third party, because the equitable factors weighed against rescission. The medical provider’s PIP claim against the insurer survived, so the assigned claims plan was not liable.
Abdulla v Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co
Uninsured and MACP
A trucker who had the use of a tractor titled to his own LLC for more than 30 days was its “owner” under MCL 500.3101. Because the required no-fault coverage was not in place, he was barred from PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b).
Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange v Barnes
Rescission and fraud
Leaving an adult daughter off the application as a household member was a material misrepresentation, because it lowered the premium. The case was sent back for the trial court to balance the equities and decide whether rescission is appropriate.
Gorgis v Auto Club Insurance Association
Priority
An injured truck driver was an employee of the trucking company under the economic reality test, so the insurer of the company-owned truck was first in priority under MCL 500.3114(3). A signed independent-contractor waiver and 1099 tax treatment did not decide the question.
Zielinski v Auto-Owners Insurance Co
Procedure
A PIP verdict stood despite improper references to the other driver’s intoxication, because the error was harmless. The attorney fee award was affirmed: the insurer did not rebut the presumption that refusing to pay a neck surgery bill was unreasonable, and the $750 hourly rate was within the court’s discretion.
Precision Surgical Associates, PC v Auto Club Insurance Association
Fee schedule
Following Favot v Brown, the “amount payable under Medicare” in MCL 500.3157 includes Medicare payment methodologies tied to the fee schedule rates. The case was sent back to recalculate the reimbursement cap.
MemberSelect Insurance Co v Estate of Clancy
Rescission and fraud
Summary disposition for the insurer was reversed because a simple title search would have shown the truck’s real owner before the crash. Where the insurer’s lack of diligence made the fraud possible, the insurer rather than the innocent third party bears the loss.
Sherman v Progressive Michigan Insurance Co
Rescission and fraud
Material misrepresentations about where the vehicles were garaged and which relatives lived in the home justified rescinding the policy, and the trial court abused its discretion by reforming it instead. Rescission decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v Auto Club Insurance Association
Fee schedule
Under Favot v Brown, an insurer may apply Medicare’s multiple-procedure payment reduction when calculating the PIP amount owed for MRI services. The lower courts’ contrary rulings were reversed.
Northland Radiology, Inc v Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co
Benefits
A PIP medical opt-out was invalid because not every statutory condition was met: the insured’s son had only Medicaid, which is not qualified health coverage. Without another valid defense, the policy must be treated as providing unlimited PIP medical coverage.
Copeland v Allstate Insurance Co
Priority
Summary disposition for the insurer was reversed because a fact question existed on where the claimant was domiciled. His affidavit clarified rather than contradicted his deposition, so a jury must decide domicile.
Brewer v Adams
Threshold and tort
A claim against a school district over a bus crash went forward because there were fact questions on whether the bus driver was negligent and whether the driver hit suffered a serious impairment of body function under MCL 500.3135(1).
Swoope v Citizens Insurance Co of the Midwest
Benefits
An unlicensed driver is not barred from PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(a) just because the vehicle was being operated unlawfully. The question is whether the vehicle was unlawfully taken, and the case was sent back to decide that.
VHS of Michigan, Inc v Allstate Insurance Co
Provider claims
The denial of penalty interest and attorney fees was vacated because the trial court asked whether the insurer acted reasonably, which the interest statute does not require. The trial court must decide when the insurer received reasonable proof and whether any amounts were genuinely uncertain.
Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital v Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Co
Priority
An injured motorcyclist, or the provider, may move down the priority list in MCL 500.3114(5) and claim from a lower-priority insurer with unlimited coverage once a higher-priority insurer’s limit is used up.
Jones v Hammons
Threshold and tort
The plaintiff did not show an “objectively manifested” impairment under MCL 500.3135(5)(a). Imaging and diagnoses show an injury, but the threshold requires evidence of observable functional limits.
Fosmore v Roth
Rescission and fraud
Rescission of the policy as to an injured passenger was reversed because the trial court misapplied the equitable factors. A fact question existed on whether the equities favored rescission.
2025
C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Auto Club Group Insurance Co (on remand)
Provider claims
Applying the Supreme Court’s C-Spine decision, the provider had standing but was not the real party in interest when it filed because it had assigned its claims to factoring companies. The case was sent back so the provider could address the counter-assignments, for example by amending its complaint.
West Michigan Home Care Services, Inc v Meemic Insurance Co
Fee schedule
Home health aide and skilled nursing care fall under the Medicare-based cap in MCL 500.3157(2), not the 55% cap in subsection (7), because Medicare covers those services, whether or not it pays for them through a prospective payment system. Subsection (8) may further limit payment.
Favot v Brown
Fee schedule
An insurer may apply fee-schedule-related Medicare limits, including the multiple-procedure payment reduction, when calculating the cap under MCL 500.3157. Fact questions about the amount owed remained for the trial court.
Boykin v Rice
Rescission and fraud
Rescission was proper as to a policyholder who misrepresented her driver’s license status on the application. Whether to rescind as to her child was sent back for the trial court to balance the equities.
C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Progressive Michigan Insurance Co; Wallace v Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation
Provider claims
A party who has assigned away a PIP claim has standing but is not the real party in interest. The defect can be cured after filing, for example by amended complaint, counter-assignment or equitable rescission, though the one-year-back rule may still limit recovery.
Fremont Insurance Co v Lighthouse Outpatient Center
Fee schedule
For a patient injured under a policy issued before June 11, 2019, the provider is paid under the pre-2019 “reasonable and customary” standard, not the new fee schedules. DIFS misread Andary v USAA when it applied them.
Pattee v Farm Bureau General Insurance Co of Michigan
Benefits
A Florida resident hurt in Michigan in 2019 was not entitled to PIP benefits under the policy, because it automatically conformed to the 2019 amendments and she was not an insured or intended beneficiary under them.
Spine Specialists of Michigan, PC v MemberSelect Insurance Co
Deadlines
The tolling provision added to MCL 500.3145(3) in 2019 does not apply to PIP claims that accrued before its June 11, 2019 effective date. Because those claims accrue when services are provided, the one-year-back rule barred recovery.
2024
Pro-Line Physical Therapy v Meemic Insurance Co
Provider claims
A provider can sue in circuit court under MCL 500.3112 without first appealing an adverse utilization review decision to DIFS, because that appeal is optional.
Estate of Williamson v AAA of Michigan
Rescission and fraud
False statements made in discovery during a lawsuit can be statements in support of a claim under the fraud bar in MCL 500.3173a(4). The bar is not limited to statements made before suit, and the case was sent back to decide whether it applied.
Childers v Progressive Marathon Insurance Co
Deadlines
The one-year deadline for PIP suits applies when the injured person, or the Michigan Property and Casualty Guaranty Association, sues a lower-priority insurer after a higher-priority insurer becomes insolvent. Both suits were time-barred.
Van Dyke Spinal Rehabilitation Center, PLLC v USA Underwriters
Rescission and fraud
When a provider brings a direct claim, the trial court must balance the equities before enforcing an insurer’s rescission, whether the rescission is framed as equitable or contractual. The insurer’s delay in acting on a misrepresentation it could have found earlier weighed against it.
Smejkal v Beck
Attendant care
An insured who chose unlimited PIP allowable expense coverage that expressly included attendant care, with no exceptions listed, contracted around the 56-hour weekly cap on family-provided care in MCL 500.3157(10).
Mota-Peguero v Falls Lake National Insurance Co
Rescission and fraud
Undisclosed rideshare driving was a material misrepresentation that could support rescission, but the provider’s direct claim under MCL 500.3112 could not be dismissed automatically. The trial court must decide in its discretion whether rescission applies as to the provider.
2023
University Neurosurgical Associates, PC v Auto Club Insurance Association
Benefits
A Medicare Advantage (Part C) plan is qualified health coverage under MCL 500.3107d, so an insured with Medicare Advantage could validly opt out of PIP medical coverage.
Andary v USAA Casualty Insurance Co
Fee schedule
The 2019 limits on family attendant care hours and the fee schedule in MCL 500.3157 cannot reduce benefits for people who were injured, while covered by a policy issued, before June 11, 2019. The Court also reinstated dismissal of the constitutional challenges to applying those limits going forward, largely for lack of standing.
Wilmore-Moody v Zakir
Threshold and tort
An insurer’s rescission of a policy after a crash does not make the injured person “uninsured” at the time of injury under MCL 500.3135(2)(c). The at-fault driver cannot use that rescission to defeat the injured person’s claim for pain and suffering.
True Care Physical Therapy, PLLC v Auto Club Group Insurance Co
Provider claims
The DIFS appeal of a utilization review decision under MCL 500.3157a(5) is optional. A provider may sue under MCL 500.3112 without first using it.
How to use these decisions
If an insurer cites a case in a denial letter, find it here and read the opinion. Check three things: whether it is published, whether the Supreme Court has since taken it up, and whether the facts match yours. Medical providers can use the fee schedule and provider claims entries alongside our guides to direct claims and assignments and the one-year-back rule. If your benefits were cut off, start with what to do when a claim is denied, or contact us for a free review.
Sources: opinions of the Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan Court of Appeals, as linked in each entry; MCL 500.3101 to 500.3179.
Questions people ask us
What is the difference between a published and an unpublished decision?
A published Court of Appeals opinion is binding precedent that trial courts and later Court of Appeals panels must follow. An unpublished opinion binds only the parties in that case, although courts may consider its reasoning. Michigan Supreme Court opinions bind every lower court.
Does a new decision change my claim?
It can. Court decisions often apply to pending claims, not only to crashes that happen after the ruling. Whether a case helps or hurts you depends on your crash date, your policy and the facts, so ask a lawyer to look at it with your file.
How often is this tracker updated?
We add Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals no-fault decisions as they are issued and review the list at least monthly. Each entry links to the court’s opinion so you can read the full decision.