Legal Opinion · Dissent

McNeel v. Farm Bureau General Insurance

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided June 29, 2010No. Docket No. 285008Published

1DissentK. F. Kelly, J.

I respectfully dissent. In my view, plaintiffs’ claim is time-barred under MCL 500.2833(1)(q), and the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Further, the majority’s conclusion that a question of fact exists regarding when the formal denial occurred is erroneous because (1) it fails to apply the plain language of MCL 500.2833(1)(q), (2) it applies the long-discredited judicial tolling doctrine, and (3) it implicitly applies the doctrine of equitable estoppel in the absence of facts supporting its application. I would reverse.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Roberts v. Mecosta County General HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Huron Tool and Engineering Co. v. Precision Consulting Services, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. People v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Lothian v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1982

17 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