Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Kirschner v. Process Design Associates, Inc

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 1999No. Docket Nos. 109609, 109610, Calendar No. 9Published

1ConcurrenceKelly, J.

I concur in the result reached by the majority. However I write separately to express my view concerning future actions. I would hold that, in future cases where an insurer defends under a reservation of rights, it must promptly notify both the court and the other parties of its intention. Also, I would favor the imposition of a court rule to that effect, in accordance with the procedures outlined in MCR 1.201.

The rationale behind the requirement is twofold: First, notification to the court is a simple courtesy and would promote efficient use of judicial resources and more fully inform the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Appell v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
  2. Allstate Insurance v. MangerNew York Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Fellows v. MauserDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 1969
  4. Griffin v. Planters Chemical CorporationDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1969

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API