Legal Opinion

Perry v. Sied

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 2000No. 112898, Calendar No. 12PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.

The issue in this case is whether a power of attorney and undertaking (PAU)1 intervening defendant Auto Club Insurance Association filed with *682the Canadian government applies to plaintiffs Michigan lawsuit. If the pau applies, defendant’s potential liability would be $200,000 in Canadian funds rather than the insurance policy limit of $20,000 U.S. funds. We hold that defendant’s expanded obligations under the pau are limited to lawsuits filed in Canada and therefore the pau does not apply to this lawsuit. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Roberts v. Auto-Owners InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Morley v. Automobile Club of MichiganMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n v. LozanisMichigan Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. Mindell v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
  5. Ecker v. City of CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 1936

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Bandit Industries, Inc. v. Hobbs International, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Detroit Public Schools v. ConnMichigan Court of Appeals · 2014
  3. Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Construction, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2012
  4. Mulcahy v. Farmers Ins. Co. of WashingtonWashington Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Mulcahy v. Farmers InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2004

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