The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that an intermediate appellate court committed reversible error by reading a prejudice requirement into a notice provision where none existed. Defrain v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 1948768 (Mich. May 30, 2012). The court held that where a notice provision contains a clear and specific time frame in which to provide notice (e.g., “thirty days”) that provision is enforceable even in the absence of prejudice to the insurer. In so ruling, the court relied on state law precedent and on Michigan’s public policy of enforcing valid contracts as written. The court’s ruling leaves intact another line of state precedent which holds that a showing of prejudice is required where the notice provision contains “temporally imprecise terms” such as “immediately” or “within a reasonable time.”