Adanalic v. Harco National Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that trucker could not obtain no-fault benefits as an “employee” because under the economic reality test he was an independent contractor
• holding that the plaintiff’s claim fell under MCL 500.3106(1)(b) when he was injured while loading pallets onto his truck
• holding that “the statute does not require that the property, itself, inflict the injuries” and rejecting the insurer’s “attempts to fundamentally rewrite the statute to state that a plaintiff’s injury must occur as a result of being struck by the property being loaded or unloaded”
• listing a 1099 form as one factor weighing toward a determination that a worker was an independent contractor
• referring to the two distinct scenarios in MCL 500.3106(1)(b)
• referring to the two distinct scenarios in MCL 500.3106(1)(b)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).