As I had predicted in August 2012, when the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in this case, the Supreme Court would likely have to further analyze the underlying issues regarding the meaning of an “unlawful taking” and therefore unauthorized use of a motorcycle or motor vehicle under Michigan’s No-Fault Act. I wrote extensively on this issue in my amicus curiae brief for Insurance Institute of Michigan, see the post here (Progressive v. DeYoung Post) and then, in my post below, noted the remaining underlying issues have yet to be resolved concerning coverage under these circumstances.
See the Supreme Court’s Order here, issued yesterday: Rambin Order
Read my prior post from August predicting this: Supreme Court to Address Court of Appeals Interpretation of “Unlawful Taking” Under No-Fault Act MCL 500.3113(a)