- Posted May 27, 2013
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
High court says insurer doesn't have to buy van
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/be045/be045edf32cf0099830e0b409941fe95374cb203" alt=""
LANSING (AP) -- An insurance company that refused to pay for a van for a disabled man has won an appeal at the Michigan Supreme Court.
Auto-Owners Insurance says it agreed to pay for modifications to the van so Ken Admire could travel with his wheelchair. But it told the Ingham County man in 2007 that it would no longer pay for an entire vehicle because of a change in Michigan law.
That left Admire with an out-of-pocket cost of $18,000. He was severely injured years ago when his motorcycle was struck by a car.
In a 4-1 decision, the Supreme Court says the cost of a van is an expense that Admire would have faced regardless of his injuries. Republican justices say the need for transportation didn't change because of his accident.
Published: Mon, May 27, 2013
headlines Oakland County
headlines National
- March 1, 1828: Sojourner Truth goes to court
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- DOJ nominees hedge on whether court orders must always be followed
- DNA evidence in open cases explored in ABC reality series
- Which law-related films have won Oscars? You may be surprised (photo gallery)
- ‘Radical agreement’ could lead to Supreme Court victory for reverse-discrimination plaintiff