Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance v. Bronson Plating Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMallett, J.
Defendants appeal the Court of Appeals determination that defendants’ duty to defend was triggered by plaintiff Bronson Plating Company’s receipt of a letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, informing Bronson of its potential liability at the contaminated North Bronson Industrial Area site. Defendants argue that receipt of the notice did not give rise to a duty to defend because the letter did not signal the initiation of a "suit” within the meaning of the subject insurance policies.
We find that the term "suit,” as used in the insurance policies at issue, is ambiguous…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Hazen Paper Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- Auto-Owners Insurance v. ChurchmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
- Upjohn Co. v. New Hampshire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
- Group Insurance v. CzopekMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
- United States Aviex Co. v. Travelers InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1983
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by109 opinions
- Wilkie v. Auto-Owners InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
- Lapham-Hickey Steel Corp. v. Protection Mutual InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1995
- Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. National Union Fire InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of WausauWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
- Employers Insurance of Wausau, Counterclaim v. Petroleum Specialties, Inc., Counterclaim Third Party Zurich Insurance Company, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
104 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.