Legal Opinion

Rory v. Continental Insurance

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided September 15, 2004No. Docket 242847PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant Continental Insurance Company (Continental) appeals by leave granted the circuit court’s order denying it summary disposition. The question is whether the contractual provision in defendant’s uninsured motorist endorsement providing that a “[cjlaim or suit must be brought within 1 year from the date of the accident” is reasonable. We hold that it is not, and we affirm.

I

On May 15, 1998, plaintiffs were injured in an automobile accident. Defendant was their insurer. On or about September 21, 1999, plaintiffs brought a first party no-fault suit against defendant and a third party…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Kern v. Blethen-ColuniMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000
  2. Stephens v. DixonMichigan Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Miller v. Progressive Casualty InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Morley v. Automobile Club of MichiganMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Sandoval v. ValdezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1978

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Rory v. Continental InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Adam v. BellMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
  3. Hicks v. Epi Printers, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. Barnier v. RaineyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004
  5. Wineman v. Durkee Lakes Hunting & Fishing Club, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2005

6 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