Legal Opinion

Corbett v. Allstate Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 29, 1976No. Docket 57371PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

The parties disagree on the meaning of the word "replaces” in Farm Bureau’s policy defining "owned automobile” to include an automobile which "replaces an owned automobile”. The Court of Appeals said:

"For 'replacement’ to occur when an insured has two vehicles in his possession, the newly acquired vehicle must take the place of the described vehicle and the described vehicle must be treated in such a manner that it becomes clearly apparent that it has been replaced by the newly acquired vehicle and is no longer covered by the insurance policy.” 62 Mich App 557, 564; 233 NW2d 649 (1975).

Constru…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Kaczmarck v. La PerriereMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
  2. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. JohnstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  3. National Indemnity Co. v. GiampapaWashington Supreme Court · 1965
  4. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. NyquistSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
  5. Filaseta v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1967

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Stockdale v. JamisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Stockdale v. JamisonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1980
  3. Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Concord General Mutual InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1983
  4. Ranger Insurance v. Air-Speed, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
  5. Allstate Insurance Co. v. YoungTennessee Supreme Court · 1982

4 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