Oostdyk v. Auto Owners Ins Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Oostdyk v. Auto Owners Ins Co.

870 N.W.2d 926, 498 Mich. 913

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 13, 2015

DocketNo. 151026; Court of Appeals No. 317221

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 870 N.W.2d 926 (Oostdyk v. Auto Owners Ins Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oostdyk v. Auto Owners Ins Co., 870 N.W.2d 926, 498 Mich. 913 (Mich. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 30, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is denied, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The Court of Appeals erred by relying on the “almost any causal connection” standard of Scott v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 278 Mich App 578, 586 (2008). The “almost-any” standard is discredited and inconsistent with current law to the extent it suggests a plaintiff may meet the statutory causation requirement without proving the causal connection was “more than incidental, fortuitous, or but for.” See McPherson v McPherson, 493 Mich 294, 299 (2013). However, denial is warranted because the trial court correctly instructed the jury that under MCL 500.3105(1), the plaintiff had to prove the causal connection between the injury and the use of the motor vehicle was “more than incidental, fortuitous, or but for.” See Thornton v Allstate Ins Co, 425 Mich 643, 646 (1986).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 30, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is denied, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The Court of Appeals erred by relying on the “almost any causal connection” standard of Scott v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 278 Mich App 578, 586 (2008). The “almost-any” standard is discredited and inconsistent with current law to the extent it suggests a plaintiff may meet the statutory causation requirement without proving the causal connection was “more than incidental, fortuitous, or but for.” See McPherson v McPherson, 493 Mich 294, 299 (2013). However, denial is warranted because the trial court correctly instructed the jury that under MCL 500.3105(1), the plaintiff had to prove the causal connection between the injury and the use of the motor vehicle was “more than incidental, fortuitous, or but for.” See Thornton v Allstate Ins Co, 425 Mich 643, 646 (1986).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

870 N.W.2d 926, 498 Mich. 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oostdyk-v-auto-owners-ins-co-mich-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack