Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Michigan Mutual Insurance v. Shaheen

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided November 6, 1980No. Docket 43340Published

1ConcurrenceDanhof, C.J.

I agree with the majority that defendant Shaheen bears no liability to the plaintiff, having never formed an attorney-cli*769ent relationship with it. I also agree that the insurer’s recovery of the $20,000 in uninsured motorist benefits that it paid to defendant Daher must be conditioned on Daher’s full recovery for his injury. However, I cannot accept the reasoning that has led the majority to their conclusion on this point.

The priorities in Daher’s recovery set by the majority are those that would result under the equitable principles of subrogation, also called in the cases "common law…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Michigan Mutual Liability Co. v. KarstenMichigan Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. Washtenaw Mutual Fire Insurance v. BuddMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Pettengill v. New Hampshire Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Vermont · 1970
  4. Union Insurance Society v. Consolidated Ice Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1932
  5. City of Detroit v. Bridgeport Brass Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1970

2 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