Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Roe

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided February 10, 1998No. Docket 186031Published

1DissentMichael J. Kelly, J.

Because I believe that the trial court correctly interpreted the insurance contract, I respectfully dissent.

Ordinarily, this Court reviews a trial court’s factual findings for clear error. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record is left with a def-*271mite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. MCR 2.613; Andrews v Pentwater Twp, 222 Mich App 491, 493; 563 NW2d 713 (1997). In this case, the trial court found that Michael Roe’s injury “did not occur within the scope of [his] employment” and “[t]hus the plaintiff…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Whetro v. AwkermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Fire Insurance Exchange v. DiehlMichigan Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Hawkeye-Security Insurance v. Vector Construction Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1990
  4. Francis v. ScheperMichigan Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Dean v. Chrysler Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1990

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