AR THERAPY SERVICES INC V FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS AR THERAPY SERVICES, INC., UNPUBLISHED June 14, 2016 Plaintiff, and FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant/Third-Party PlaintiffAppellee, v No. 322339 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2014-138769-AV PROGRESSIVE MARATHON INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, and DOMINIQUE WILLIAMS Third-Party Defendant. Before: SAWYER, P.J., and BECKERING and BOONSTRA, JJ. BECKERING, J. (concurring). I concur in the majority opinion because I am bound by this Court’s ruling in Bazzi v Sentinel Ins Co, __ Mich App __; __ NW2d __ (2016). Were I not bound by that ruling, however, I would conclude that our Supreme Court’s decision in Titan Ins Co v Hyten, 491 Mich 547; 817 NW2d 562 (2012), which dealt with contractually-based, excess liability coverage and the easily ascertainable rule, does not adversely impact the innocent third-party rule with respect to statutorily mandated no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. As such, I would affirm the circuit court’s ruling (which affirmed the district court’s ruling) that Progressive Marathon Insurance Company may not rescind its insurance policy that was in place at the time -1- of the accident at issue and covered first-party PIP benefits for Christopher Carmichael, as he was injured while a passenger in an automobile insured by Progressive. /s/ Jane M. Beckering -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
