The complex statutory scheme affording Michigan vehicle owners new PIP[1] coverage options after no-fault reform has led to a wave of uncertainty and litigation in the years following its enactment, and the Court of Appeals recently opined on another of these issues. In Love v Rudolph,[2] the Court created a new directive on applying this scheme in claims involving motorcyclists.

A Closer Look at Priority in Bus-Related Claims In September 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in Michigan Municipal League Liability & Property Pool v Farmers Insurance Exchange. The case asked a straightforward but important question: when an uninsured passenger is injured while boarding a city-operated bus, which insurer is responsible for paying personal injury protection (PIP) benefits? The Case in Brief The City of Niles operates Dial-A-Ride

In July 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a significant opinion in two consolidated cases: C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Progressive Michigan Insurance Company  and Wallace v Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation . At the center of both disputes was a deceptively simple question: Who is allowed to bring a lawsuit for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits when those rights have already been assigned to someone else?   The Court’s answer was nuanced bu