Legal Opinion · Dissent

Heniser v. Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided August 2, 1993No. Docket No. 142957Published

1DissentGriffin, J.

I respectfully dissent. In my view, the majority has impermissibly transformed a policy definition into an exclusion. As a general rule, once coverage is afforded,

if an insurer intends to exclude coverage under certain circumstances, it should clearly state those circumstances in the section of its policy entitled "Exclusions.” Powers v DAIIE, 427 Mich 602, 632-633; 398 NW2d 411 (1986). [Transamerica Ins Corp *74of America v Buckley, 169 Mich App 540, 546; 426 NW2d 696 (1988).]

As noted by the majority, the sole issue before us is whether coverage is excluded in this instance because the home did…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Powers v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance ExchangeMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
  2. O'Niel v. . the Buffalo Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1849
  3. Epps v. NicholsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
  4. Reid v. Hardware Mutual Insurance Insurance Co. of the Carolinas, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1969
  5. German Insurance v. RussellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902

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