Legal Opinion · Dissent

Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance v. Continental Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided August 22, 1995No. Docket Nos. 98342, 99439, (Calendar Nos. 10-11)Published

1DissentLevin, J.

The questions presented in these cases consolidated on appeal concern the allocation between "primary” insurers of the cost of defending an insured where the operation of "other insurance” clauses renders one insurance policy excess coverage and the other primary coverage, and the liability exceeds the primary policy coverage limits so that both insurers must pay.1

The facts of these cases represent two sides of a single coin. In Frankenmuth Mut Ins Co, Inc v Continental Ins Co, the primary insurer, Continental, wrongly refused to provide a defense for an insured. An excess insurer,…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Continental Casualty Co. v. Zurich InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Signal Companies, Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Commercial Union Assurance Companies v. Safeway Stores, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Kangas v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1975
  5. Commercial Union Insurance v. Medical Protective Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1986

19 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