Legal Opinion

Morgan v. Cincinnati Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 19, 1981No. 63465, (Calendar No. 6)PublishedCited by 61 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKavanagh, J.

We granted leave to appeal to consider whether the intentional burning of a home by one spouse will bar recovery under a statutory fire insurance policy where the policy names both spouses as "the insured”. We hold in this case that it will not.

Plaintiff and her husband, as tenants by the entireties, owned a home which was insured by defendant. On January 20, 1974, it was extensively damaged by a fire started by plaintiffs husband, who was living apart from plaintiff as divorce proceedings between them were then pending. Plaintiff filed a claim under the insurance policy, which the defendant…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Steigler v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Delaware · 1978
  2. Monaghan v. Agricultural Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Eghotz v. CreechMichigan Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Way v. RootMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Hoyt v. New Hampshire Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1942

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by61 opinions

  1. K & T Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A Dairy Queen of Blissfield, and Tahani Khoury v. Zurich Insurance Company, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
  2. J.C. Wyckoff & Associates, Inc. v. Standard Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
  3. Hedtcke v. Sentry InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Ali Bazzi v. Sentinel Insurance CompanyMichigan Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Watson v. United Services Automobile Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997

56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API