Insurance claim dispute in Michigan? Start with the policy, the dates and the denial letter
I am Mitchell Bisson, a Grand Rapids civil litigation lawyer. I have litigated for over 15 years. This page explains how disputes over insurance claims work in Michigan when the claim is a house, fire, water, vehicle or liability coverage dispute outside the no-fault benefits system: who has to prove what, when an insurer owes interest, what a policy can require of you before you sue, how the appraisal process works, and what happens when an insurer refuses to defend a lawsuit. I act for policyholders and for insurers, and I do not promise outcomes.
The short answer. In Michigan, a dispute over an insurance claim is generally a dispute over a contract. You have to show that the loss falls within the policy, and the insurer has to prove that an exclusion or other basis for denial applies. Hunt v Drielick, 496 Mich 366, 373 (2014). Michigan courts have held that a policyholder has no separate bad faith claim against an insurer, so the remedy is usually the benefits owed plus statutory interest of 12% where it applies. MCL 500.2006(4). Policies carry notice rules, sworn examination requirements and deadlines to sue, and a missed condition can end an otherwise good claim, so the first move is to read the policy and write down every date. Nothing here predicts how your claim will end.
Personal injury protection benefits under the no-fault act, uninsured and underinsured motorist claims and general civil statutes of limitation are separate subjects with their own rules, and I do not cover them here.
Common insurance claim disputes and the rules that control them
| Dispute | What the rule is | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| The insurer pays late | Interest at 12% per year on benefits not paid on a timely basis, counted from a date 60 days after satisfactory proof of loss | MCL 500.2006(1), (3), (4) |
| The insurer says you gave notice too late | Prejudice is required if the policy says “immediately” or “within a reasonable time”; a clear fixed deadline can be enforced without it | Koski v Allstate Ins Co, 456 Mich 439, 444 (1998); DeFrain v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 491 Mich 359, 375 (2012) |
| The insurer wants a sworn examination | Usually enforceable, and a condition to suing; the consequence of refusing depends on whether the noncompliance was wilful | Thomson v State Farm Ins Co, 232 Mich App 38, 45-47, 56 (1998) |
| You disagree on the amount of the loss | Appraisal on written demand for fire policies; coverage questions stay with the court | MCL 500.2833(1)(m) |
| The insurer pays less than replacement cost | Actual cash value may be paid until the property is repaired or replaced; the policy wording controls deductions | MCL 500.2827 |
| The insurer says the application was false | Rescission and cancellation for fraud are available, but rescission is not automatic | Titan Ins Co v Hyten, 491 Mich 547, 572-573 (2012); Bazzi v Sentinel Ins Co, 502 Mich 390, 396, 409, 412 (2018) |
| The insurer refuses to defend a lawsuit | The duty to defend is broader than the duty to pay | American Bumper & Mfg Co v Hartford Fire Ins Co, 452 Mich 440, 450, 452 (1996); Detroit Edison Co v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 102 Mich App 136, 141-146 (1980) |
| The suit deadline has passed or is close | For a fire policy, one year after the loss or the longer policy period, tolled from notice until formal denial. Other policies follow their own wording | MCL 500.2833(1)(q) |
Who has to prove what in an insurance coverage dispute
Michigan puts the burden of proof in two steps. The policyholder has to show that the claim falls within the terms of the policy. If it does, the insurer carries the burden of proving that coverage is absent because of an exclusion or other limit. The Michigan Supreme Court stated that rule in Hunt v Drielick, 496 Mich 366, 373 (2014).
The second rule that drives most disputes is about the policy language itself. In Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 461 (2005), the Court held that unless a contract provision violates law or one of the traditional defenses to the enforceability of a contract applies, a court must construe and apply unambiguous provisions as written.
Late payment and 12% interest on an insurance claim
The Insurance Code requires an insurer to pay claims on a timely basis, or to pay interest. MCL 500.2006(3) sets the framework. The insurer must specify in writing the materials that make up satisfactory proof of loss within 30 days after it receives the claim, unless the claim is settled within the 30 days. If proof of loss is supplied for only part of the claim, the amount the proof supports is considered timely if the insurer pays it within 60 days after receiving the proof, and each later-supported part gets its own 60 days.
When benefits are not paid on time, the benefits bear simple interest at 12% per year from a date 60 days after the insurer received satisfactory proof of loss, if the claimant is the insured or a person directly entitled to benefits under the policy. The interest is paid in addition to the loss and at the time of payment. If the insurer offers payment and the claimant rejects it, and the claimant does not later recover more than was offered, no interest is due. MCL 500.2006(4).
Insurers often argue that interest is not owed because the claim was reasonably in dispute. The Michigan Supreme Court addressed that argument in Estate of Nickola v MIC General Ins Co, 500 Mich 115 (2017). The Court held that the reasonably-in-dispute language in subsection (4) applies only to third-party tort claimants and not to insureds, so an insured whose benefits are not paid within 60 days after satisfactory proof of loss is entitled to the 12% interest even when the insurer had a good-faith reason to dispute the claim. The claim in Nickola was for underinsured motorist benefits, but the Court decided what the statute itself means for insureds as a class, so I treat it as the starting point for an insured’s claim under a policy governed by MCL 500.2006.
For fire policies, the Insurance Code also requires the policy to provide that the loss is payable within 30 days after receipt of proof of the amount of loss, except as provided in section 2845. MCL 500.2833(1)(p). That is a policy term, and the interest statute is the remedy when payment runs late. The dates matter in both directions: the date the insurer received a complete proof of loss, the date it specified what it needed, and the date it paid. I build that timeline for every claim.
Bad faith, punitive damages and the unfair claim practices statute
Many policyholders expect a separate bad faith lawsuit against an insurer that stalls or denies a claim it should pay. Michigan law is narrower. The Court of Appeals has stated that an alleged bad faith breach of an insurance contract does not state an independent tort claim, and that punitive damages are generally not recoverable in Michigan. Casey v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 273 Mich App 388, 400-402 (2007). The Michigan Supreme Court treated a disability income policy as a commercial contract in Kewin v Massachusetts Mut Life Ins Co, 409 Mich 401, 418-421 (1980), so recovery for mental distress caused by the breach was generally unavailable unless the parties contemplated it when they made the contract, and exemplary damages required tortious conduct independent of the breach.
What a policyholder can recover is the benefit the policy promises, with the damages that arise naturally from the breach or were within the parties’ contemplation, plus statutory interest. A claim that an insurer acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a third party’s claim against its insured, and so exposed the insured to excess liability, is a different situation from a policyholder’s claim for the policyholder’s own loss, and I look at which one a case presents.
The Insurance Code lists unfair claim practices in MCL 500.2026(1). The list includes misrepresenting policy provisions, failing to act reasonably and promptly on claim communications, refusing to pay without a reasonable investigation, failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after proof of loss, failing to attempt in good faith to settle a claim when liability is reasonably clear, compelling an insured to sue by offering substantially less than is due, and failing to promptly give a reasonable explanation of a denial or compromise offer. The statute reaches conduct that is “other than isolated incidents” and that is a course of conduct showing a persistent tendency. In Young v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 139 Mich App 600, 605-607 (1984), the Court of Appeals held that an insured has no independent cause of action under that section.
Notice, proof of loss and the conditions in the policy
Insurance policies place duties on the policyholder after a loss: give notice, protect the property, document the loss, submit a sworn proof of loss, allow inspection and, if asked, sit for an examination under oath. An insurer that denies a claim on the ground that the policyholder did not meet one of those duties is making an argument the courts have addressed in some detail.
On late notice, the wording of the policy controls. In Koski v Allstate Ins Co, 456 Mich 439, 444 (1998), the Michigan Supreme Court held that an insurer that seeks to cut off responsibility because the insured did not comply with a provision requiring notice immediately or within a reasonable time must establish actual prejudice to its position. In DeFrain v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 491 Mich 359, 375 (2012), the Court explained that Koski imposed that prejudice requirement only on provisions requiring notice immediately or within a reasonable time, and did not extend it to a provision requiring notice within a specified time, such as 30 days. It overruled an earlier Court of Appeals decision to the extent that decision had extended Koski. DeFrain involved a 30-day notice provision in an auto policy, and I read each policy for its own words before I decide which rule applies.
For fire policies, MCL 500.2833(1)(l) requires the policy to state the notification requirements when a loss occurs, and MCL 500.2833(1)(q) provides that an action may be commenced only after compliance with the policy requirements.
Examinations under oath are the other condition that surprises people. In Thomson v State Farm Ins Co, 232 Mich App 38, 45-47, 56 (1998), the Court of Appeals held that such a requirement in a policy is generally enforceable and that, when requested, the examination is a condition to bringing an action. The court then softened the consequence. It held that if the noncompliance is wilful, dismissal must be with prejudice, and if it is not wilful, dismissal must be without prejudice. Wilful noncompliance means a failure or refusal to submit to the examination, or otherwise cooperate in the investigation, that is part of a deliberate effort to withhold material information or a pattern of noncooperation, and the burden is on the insured to show there was no such effort. That is why I tell clients to answer an examination request in writing, ask what documents to bring, schedule a date promptly and have a lawyer attend.
The deadline to sue on a property insurance claim
The deadline to sue is one of the most common ways a good claim is lost. For fire policies, the Insurance Code requires the policy to provide that an action must be commenced within one year after the loss or within the time period specified in the policy, whichever is longer, and that the time for commencing an action is tolled from the time the insured notifies the insurer of the loss until the insurer formally denies liability. MCL 500.2833(1)(q).
The tolling language raises the question of when a denial is formal. In Smitham v State Farm Fire & Cas Co, 297 Mich App 537, 545 (2012), the Court of Appeals held that a formal denial necessary to end tolling must be explicit and must unequivocally impress upon the insured the need to pursue further relief in court. In a published 2026 decision involving a homeowner water damage claim, the Court of Appeals described a policy with a one-year suit clause and tolling as consistent with the statute, and it held that whether a particular letter was a formal denial of some of the claims was a question of fact because the letter may have been equivocal or later revoked. Maksym v Auto-Owners Ins Co, No. 372827 (Mich App, February 24, 2026) (published). As of October 2026, I have not found a Michigan Supreme Court order on this decision.
Appraisal: when the amount of loss goes to appraisers
Appraisal is a process for settling the amount of a loss without a trial. For fire policies, MCL 500.2833(1)(m) requires the policy to provide that if the insured and insurer fail to agree on the actual cash value or amount of the loss, either party may make a written demand for appraisal. Each side then selects a competent, independent appraiser and notifies the other within 20 days after receipt of the written demand. The two appraisers select a competent, impartial umpire, and if they cannot agree within 15 days, either party may ask a circuit judge of the county where the loss occurred or the property is located to select the umpire. A written agreement signed by any two of the three sets the amount of the loss. Each side pays its own appraiser, and the umpire and other expenses are split equally.
The limit on appraisal is that it decides the amount of the loss and not whether the policy covers it. In Auto-Owners Ins Co v Kwaiser, 190 Mich App 482, 486-487 (1991), the Court of Appeals described appraisal as a substitute for judicial determination of a dispute about the amount of a loss, held that judicial review of an award is limited to bad faith, fraud, misconduct or manifest mistake, and held that where the parties cannot agree on coverage, a court decides coverage first. The Michigan Supreme Court drew the same line in Dupree v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 497 Mich 1, 4-5 (2014): matters of coverage are generally for the courts, and the method of determining the loss is reserved for the appraisers.
The Court of Appeals applied the rule in a restaurant fire case. In Cantina Enterprises II Inc v Property-Owners Ins Co, 349 Mich App 682, 693-694, 698 (2024), the court held that once an insurer admits coverage, as by making payments, a remaining dispute over what is included in the covered property is an issue about the amount of loss that goes to appraisal, and that the court must order appraisal under the statute. If liability is not admitted, the court decides coverage first. The 2026 Maksym decision adds that partial payments for specific covered items were not an admission of liability on the disputed claims, so the insured there was not entitled to a full appraisal of the remaining claims while coverage was still disputed. Maksym v Auto-Owners Ins Co, No. 372827 (Mich App, February 24, 2026) (published). As of October 2026, I have not found a Michigan Supreme Court order on this decision.
Actual cash value, depreciation and replacement cost
Fire policies must provide, at a minimum, coverage for the actual cash value of the property at the time of the loss. MCL 500.2833(1)(a). The Insurance Code also permits an insurer to issue a policy that pays the difference between actual cash value and the amount actually necessary to repair, rebuild or replace the property, and it permits the policy to limit payment to actual cash value unless the property is actually repaired, rebuilt or replaced at the same or another contiguous site. MCL 500.2827(1), (3); MCL 500.2826.
That structure is why many homeowners receive a first payment that is lower than the estimate. In Singer v American States Ins, 245 Mich App 370, 381-382 & n 9 (2001), the Court of Appeals quoted a homeowner policy that paid no more than actual cash value unless repair or replacement was complete or the cost fell below stated thresholds, and remanded because the actual repair or replacement cost, and whether the dwelling had been repaired, were not clear.
How the insurer calculates actual cash value is a separate question. In Salesin v State Farm Fire & Cas Co, 229 Mich App 346, 366-369 (1998), the insurer had deducted an estimated 20% for general contractor overhead and profit, along with depreciation, when it paid actual cash value on building claims. The Court of Appeals held that the policy before it did not allow the overhead and profit deduction, but it did not hold that those costs must be included in every case. The decision rested on that policy and the statute then in effect, so a differently worded policy can lead to a different result.
Mistakes on the application and a rescission defense
A mistake on an insurance application does not by itself end coverage, but fraud can. Fire policies must state that the policy may be void on the basis of misrepresentation, fraud or concealment. MCL 500.2833(1)(c). The Michigan Supreme Court held in Titan Ins Co v Hyten, 491 Mich 547, 572-573 (2012) that an insurer may use traditional legal and equitable remedies, including cancellation, rescission or reformation, on the ground of fraud in the application, even if the fraud was easily ascertainable and the claimant is a third party.
In Bazzi v Sentinel Ins Co, 502 Mich 390, 396, 409, 412 (2018), the Court held that Titan abrogated the innocent-third-party rule, but that the insurer was not automatically entitled to rescission and that the trial court should decide, in its discretion, whether rescission was available as against the injured plaintiff.
Mortgage lenders and fire claims
A homeowner’s policy often names the lender in a mortgage clause. Michigan courts treat the standard version of that clause as a separate contract between the lender and the insurer. In Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Null, 304 Mich App 508, 524, 527, 530 (2014), the Court of Appeals held that the lender’s interest is not avoided by the acts, representations or omissions of the insured, and applied that rule where the owner had stopped living in the home and lost his own coverage. In Singer v American States Ins, 245 Mich App 370, 378 n 6 (2001), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that a land contract vendor stands in the same position as a mortgagee under a standard mortgage clause.
The Insurance Code also protects a lender named in a fire policy. An insurer may cancel the interest of a designated mortgagee only on at least 10 days’ written notice. If the insured fails to render proof of loss, the lender, on notice, must render proof of loss within 60 days. If the insurer claims there was no liability as to the owner, it is subrogated to the lender’s rights to the extent of payment, without impairing the lender’s right to sue. MCL 500.2833(1)(j). A homeowner whose own claim has been denied should still tell the lender right away, because the lender’s notice duties and deadlines run on a separate track.
Auto physical damage claims outside the no-fault system
Damage to your own vehicle is usually a policy contract question. The no-fault act requires an owner to maintain security for personal protection insurance, property protection insurance and residual liability insurance. MCL 500.3101(1). Collision coverage is not on that list, so it exists only if your policy includes it, on the terms in your policy, and that is why a collision or comprehensive dispute turns on the policy wording, the amount-of-loss process and the deadline to sue.
Property protection insurance under the no-fault act covers certain property damage from a Michigan motor vehicle accident, but it excludes damage to vehicles and their contents that are operated or designed for operation on a public highway, unless the vehicle was parked in a manner that did not cause unreasonable risk of the damage that occurred. MCL 500.3123(1)(a).
When your liability insurer will not defend or settle
A liability policy gives you two separate promises: to defend you if you are sued, and to pay a covered judgment or settlement. The Michigan Supreme Court has said the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, and that doubt about whether the complaint alleges a liability the policy covers is resolved in the insured’s favor. American Bumper & Mfg Co v Hartford Fire Ins Co, 452 Mich 440, 450, 452 (1996). The Court of Appeals explained that the duty depends on the allegations in the third party’s complaint, extends to groundless or fraudulent suits if the allegations arguably come within coverage, and requires a defense if any theory of recovery is covered. Detroit Edison Co v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 102 Mich App 136, 141-146 (1980).
If an insurer refuses to defend without justification and the insured settles, the general rule is that the insurer is bound to pay the amount of a reasonable, good faith settlement. The insurer still has the chance to show that the settlement was unreasonable or made in bad faith, that there was no liability, or that the liability was not covered. Detroit Edison Co v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 102 Mich App 136, 141-146 (1980). The way an insurer protects itself is to defend while reserving its rights, and the way an insured protects itself is to demand a defense in writing at once and document every step. The answer deadline in the underlying lawsuit keeps running while the coverage dispute goes on, so a default is the risk that matters most.
A person injured by an insured generally cannot sue the insured’s liability insurer in the original lawsuit. The Insurance Code provides that the insurer shall not be made or joined as a party defendant in the original action, and an action in the nature of garnishment against the insurer under the policy is available when execution against the insured is returned unsatisfied because of insolvency or bankruptcy. MCL 500.3030; MCL 500.3006.
Complaining to the state insurance regulator
The Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services takes complaints about the insurers it regulates, and its complaint page encourages consumers to first try to resolve the dispute directly with the insurer. How to file a complaint with DIFS. A complaint is not a substitute for a lawsuit, and filing it does not stop a policy deadline from running.
How I handle an insurance claim dispute
- Read the policy. I start with the declarations, the insuring agreement, the exclusions, the conditions, the loss settlement section and every endorsement.
- Build the timeline. I list the date of loss, the date of notice, each request for documents, each payment and each letter, because the interest, notice and suit deadlines all run from those dates.
- Read the denial or the offer against the policy. I check whether the stated reason is in the policy, whether the insurer investigated, and whether the amount offered matches the scope of the loss.
- Separate coverage from amount. Coverage disputes go to court and amount disputes may go to appraisal, so I sort the issues before I choose a forum.
- Protect the deadlines. I send written notice, answer any request for an examination or documents on time, and calendar the earliest date that could end the right to sue.
- Make the demand. I put the claim, the proof and the interest owed in a written demand, and I give the insurer a fair chance to correct the problem.
- Take the next step. That may be appraisal, a regulator complaint or a lawsuit in Kent County. If the case is on the insurer’s side, I defend the denial and the claim file with the same attention to the record.
What I need from you
Bring the full policy and every endorsement, the declarations page, the claim number and the name of the adjuster. Bring all letters, emails and texts with the insurer, the denial letter, any proof of loss you signed, and any request for a statement or examination. Bring photographs of the loss, estimates, invoices and the payment history. Write down the date of the loss, when you first told the insurer and how. If you were sued, bring the summons and complaint and tell me the date you received them. Do not sign a release or a settlement and do not agree to a recorded statement until we have talked.
Where your Kent County insurance claim will be heard
I represent clients in Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Grandville, Wyoming and across Kent County. Under MCL 600.8301(1), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil actions when the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000. Michigan law sets the Kent County district courts by municipality. The 61st District Court serves the city of Grand Rapids, the 59th serves the cities of Grandville and Walker, the 62A serves the city of Wyoming and the 62B serves the city of Kentwood. MCL 600.8128a; MCL 600.8130(1)-(3). The 63rd District Court serves the rest of Kent County outside those five cities. MCL 600.8130(4). Circuit courts have original jurisdiction over civil claims that are not assigned exclusively to another court by the constitution or statute, and for Kent County the circuit court is the 17th Judicial Circuit. MCL 600.605; MCL 600.518.
Why people hire me for a Michigan insurance claim dispute
You work directly with me, the lawyer handling your case. I give you the strengths and weaknesses of the case straight, including what it could cost you and what it could recover. I build the case the facts support, and then we decide together how to proceed.
My fee depends on the type of case, its complexity and whether it is likely to go to trial. We talk about the fee at the consultation, before you decide whether to hire me.
Questions I hear from people disputing an insurance claim in Michigan
Can I sue my insurer for bad faith or collect punitive damages if it delays or wrongly denies my claim in Michigan?
Not as a separate bad faith claim. The Michigan Court of Appeals has held that an alleged bad faith breach of an insurance contract does not state an independent tort claim, and that punitive damages are generally not recoverable in Michigan. The claim is a contract claim for the benefits owed, plus 12% simple interest under MCL 500.2006 where it applies. Exemplary damages are not awarded for breaching a commercial contract without tortious conduct independent of the breach, and mental distress damages are not available for the breach alone unless the parties contemplated them when they made the contract.
Can I sue my insurer under the unfair claim practices section of the Michigan Insurance Code for stalling or lowballing my claim?
Not on that section alone. MCL 500.2026 lists unfair claim practices, such as refusing to pay without a reasonable investigation, failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time, and forcing an insured to sue by offering substantially less than is due. The Court of Appeals has held that an insured has no independent cause of action under it, because it addresses a persistent course of conduct that the insurance commissioner polices, and one insured's claim is an isolated incident. The remedy for one claim is a contract suit for the benefits, with 12% interest under MCL 500.2006 where it applies.
My insurer says I gave notice of my claim or of a lawsuit too late. Can it deny coverage for that reason in Michigan?
It depends on the notice wording. If the policy requires notice immediately or within a reasonable time, the insurer must show actual prejudice to its position from the delay (Koski v Allstate, 1998). If the policy sets a fixed deadline, such as 30 days, the Michigan Supreme Court held in DeFrain v State Farm (2012) that an unambiguous deadline is enforced without proof of prejudice. DeFrain overruled an earlier Court of Appeals decision to the extent it had extended Koski to fixed deadlines. The policy language, and for fire policies MCL 500.2833(1)(l), (q), set the notice rules.
I was sued and my liability insurer refuses to defend me, saying the claim is not covered. Is that allowed in Michigan?
Often it is not. Under Michigan law the duty to defend is broader than the duty to pay. An insurer must defend when the allegations against the insured even arguably fall within the policy, even if the lawsuit is groundless or fraudulent, and doubt about whether the complaint alleges a covered liability is resolved in the insured's favor. The insurer cannot stop at the labels in the complaint, and if any one theory of recovery is covered it must defend the suit. If the policy truly does not apply, there is no duty to defend.
Can my insurer cancel my policy or refuse my claim because of a mistake or misstatement on my insurance application?
Possibly, if the misstatement amounts to fraud. The Michigan Supreme Court held in Titan v Hyten (2012) that an insurer may use traditional legal and equitable remedies, including cancellation, rescission and reformation, for fraud in the application, even if the fraud was easily ascertainable and the claimant is a third party. In Bazzi v Sentinel (2018) it held that rescission is not automatic and sent the question of whether it is available back to the trial court's discretion. Fire policies must state that the policy may be void for misrepresentation, fraud or concealment (MCL 500.2833(1)(c)).
My insurer denied my fire claim because of something I did, such as not living in the house. Can the mortgage lender still be paid?
Often yes. Under a standard mortgage clause the mortgagee has a separate and distinct contract with the insurer, and the mortgagee's interest is not avoided by the acts, representations or omissions of the insured. In Wells Fargo v Null (2014) the Court of Appeals held that the clause gave the mortgagee coverage even though the owner's coverage was lost because he stopped living in the home. The mortgagee must still meet the policy's own conditions, and a land contract seller named on the policy can stand in the same position.
Can my insurer hold back depreciation and contractor overhead and profit from the first payment on my house claim?
Depreciation, often yes. Michigan law lets a fire policy pay only actual cash value until the property is actually repaired or replaced (MCL 500.2827(3)), and the policy in Singer (2001) did exactly that. But the Court of Appeals held in Salesin (1998) that State Farm could not deduct estimated contractor overhead and profit from the actual cash value payment under the policy before it, without holding that those costs must be included in every case. The policy's loss settlement wording controls, so estimates and receipts should be kept for the later claim.
My property insurer demanded an examination under oath. Do I have to go, and what if I refuse?
Usually yes if the policy provides for it. The Court of Appeals has held that an examination under oath requirement in an insurance policy is generally enforceable and is a condition that must be satisfied before the insured may sue. A failure to comply is not automatically a permanent bar: dismissal must be with prejudice if the noncompliance was wilful and without prejudice if it was not, and the insured bears the burden to show there was no deliberate effort to withhold material information or pattern of noncooperation. Fire policies must be complied with before suit (MCL 500.2833(1)(q)).
Related Michigan pages
- Grand Rapids Civil Litigation Attorney
- Grand Rapids Lawyer for Defending a Lawsuit
- Grand Rapids Civil Discovery and Trial Attorney
- Grand Rapids Breach of Contract Attorney
- No-fault PIP benefits
I represent policyholders and insurers in insurance claim disputes in Kent County and West Michigan. Contact me 24/7 by phone or email. Your Rights, My Fight! Call for a free initial consultation.
Big-Firm Power. Street-Level Grit.
Law Offices of Mitchell S. Bisson, 2828 Kraft Ave SE, Suite 295, Grand Rapids, MI 49512, serving Kent County and West Michigan.
This page provides general information about Michigan law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and every case turns on its own facts. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.