Nehra v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The defendant insurer paid benefits to the plaintiff after he filed a claim stating that he was disabled by sickness. When those benefits were soon to expire, the plaintiff sought to recharacterize his disability as the product of an injury. The defendant refused the reclassification, and the plaintiff sued. The circuit court granted summary disposition for the defendant, but the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the policies’ definition of “injury” was ambiguous. We reinstate the judgment of the circuit court.
i
Plaintiff Samuel A. Nehra, D.D.S., practiced dentistry for many years.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Heniser v. Frankenmuth Mutual InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1995
- Auto-Owners Insurance v. City of ClareMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Citizens Insurance Co. of America v. Federated Mutual InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1995
- Collins v. Nationwide Life Insurance CompanyMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
- Wheeler v. Tucker Freight Lines Co., Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1983
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Provident Life & Accident Insurance v. HallumSupreme Court of Georgia · 2003
- Carney v. Paul Revere Life InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 2005
- Charles King v. Pennsylvania Life Insurance CoCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
- Gin v. Pennsylvania Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Bilezikjian v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.