Legal Opinion
Gilliam v. Hi-Temp Products, Inc.
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided December 18, 2003No. Docket Nos. 238102, 238224, 238341, 238375PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMarkey, J.
In each of these consolidated appeals, defendant Hi-Temp Products, Inc., appeals by leave granted the trial court’s order denying its motion for summary disposition. Hi-Temp argues that plaintiffs’ claims of asbestos-related personal injury are barred by MCL 450.1842a1 because they were filed beyond the one-year period allowed for the filing of claims after Hi-Temp published notice of its dissolution. We agree and reverse.
*101I. SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Hi-Temp sold asbestos products. Many individuals have claimed that their exposure to Hi-Temp’s products caused asbestos-related diseases.…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Maiden v. RozwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Spiek v. Department of TransportationMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
- Sun Valley Foods Co. v. WardMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa v. City SavingsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Anderson v. Krafft-Murphy Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2013
- City of South Bend v. Century Indemnity Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2005
- In re All Cases Against Sager Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2012
- Gilliam v. Hi-Temp Products Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2004
- Randy Williams v. Clark Sand Company, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2015
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.