Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Auto-Owners Insurance v. Michigan Mutual Insurance

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided July 16, 1997No. Docket 184788, 184812Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCorrigan, J.

I concur in part n of the majority opinion without reservation regarding Docket No. 184788. First, the insurance contract had not come into effect when the accident occurred. Second, defendant Michigan Mutual Insurance Company was not bound by defendant Central Insurance Center’s actions because Central did not act as an agent for Michigan Mutual and had no authority to bind Michigan Mutual.

*218I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s implicit conclusion in part I regarding Docket No. 184812. I disagree that plaintiff Auto-Owners Insurance Company has a cause of action as subrogee…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Farrington v. Total Petroleum, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1993
  2. House Speaker v. State Administrative BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Grand Traverse County v. StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Bell v. League Life InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986
  5. Monroe Beverage Co. v. Stroh Brewery Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1997

5 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