Yeo v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Ins. Co.
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court order that granted summary disposition to defendant on the basis that plaintiffs claim was time-barred. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff argues on appeal that her claim was not time-barred because the period of limitation was tolled during the pendency of defendant’s appeal to this Court in an earlier lawsuit. See Yeo v State Farm Ins Co, 219 Mich App 254, 258-259; 555 NW2d 893 (1996). We do not find plaintiff’s argument to be persuasive.
Pursuant to the tolling statute, MCL…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Yeo v. State Farm InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1996
- Sherrell v. BugaskiMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
- Darin v. HavenMichigan Court of Appeals · 1989
- Federal Kemper Insurance v. IsaacsonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
3Cited by14 opinions
- Kalasho v. City of EastpointeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- Mable Cleary Trust v. Edward-Marlah Muzyl TrustMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
- Mable Cleary Trust v. Edward-Marlah Muzyl TrustMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
- Grimmer v. LeeMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
- Ellout v. Detroit Medical CenterMichigan Court of Appeals · 2009
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.