Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2022–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Grange Mutual Fire Insurance
green
2 sentences2026The mend-the-hold doctrine provides that, “when a loss under an insurance policy has occurred and payment refused for reasons stated, good faith requires that the company shall fully apprise the insured of all the defenses it intends to rely upon, and its failure to do so is, in legal effect, a waiver, and estops it from maintaining any defenses to an action on the policy other than those of which it has thus given notice.” Smith v Grange Mut Fire Ins Co of Mich, 234 Mich 119, 122-123 ; 208 NW 145 (1926). 2026The mend-the-hold doctrine provides that, “when a loss under an insurance policy has occurred and payment refused for reasons stated, good faith requires that the company shall fully apprise the insured of all the defenses it intends to rely upon, and its failure to do so is, in legal effect, a waiver, and estops it from maintaining any defenses to an action on the policy other than those of which it has thus given notice.” Smith v Grange Mut Fire Ins Co of Mich, 234 Mich 119, 122-123 ; 208 NW 145 (1926). | 3 | 2022–2026 |
Smit v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences2023As this Court explained in Smit v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 207 Mich App 674, 680 ; 525 NW2d 528 (1994): [T]he Supreme Court limited the application of waiver and estoppel in Ruddock v Detroit Life Ins Co, 209 Mich 638 ; 177 NW 242 (1920). 2023As this Court explained in Smit v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 207 Mich App 674, 680 ; 525 NW2d 528 (1994): [T]he Supreme Court limited the application of waiver and estoppel in Ruddock v Detroit Life Ins Co, 209 Mich 638 ; 177 NW 242 (1920). | 2 | 2022–2023 |
C. E. Tackels, Inc. v. Fantin
neutral
2 sentences2023In C E Tackels, Inc v Fantin, 341 Mich 119, 124 ; 67 NW2d 71 (1954), our Supreme Court explained the mend-the-hold doctrine—which is sometimes referred to as “waiver and estoppel”— as follows: Where a party gives a reason for his conduct and decision touching anything involved in a controversy, he cannot, after litigation has begun, change his ground, and put his conduct upon another and a different consideration. 2023In C E Tackels, Inc v Fantin, 341 Mich 119, 124 ; 67 NW2d 71 (1954), our Supreme Court explained the mend-the-hold doctrine—which is sometimes referred to as “waiver and estoppel”— as follows: Where a party gives a reason for his conduct and decision touching anything involved in a controversy, he cannot, after litigation has begun, change his ground, and put his conduct upon another and a different consideration. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Ruddock v. Detroit Life Insurance
green
2 sentences2023As this Court explained in Smit v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 207 Mich App 674, 680 ; 525 NW2d 528 (1994): [T]he Supreme Court limited the application of waiver and estoppel in Ruddock v Detroit Life Ins Co, 209 Mich 638 ; 177 NW 242 (1920). 2023As this Court explained in Smit v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 207 Mich App 674, 680 ; 525 NW2d 528 (1994): [T]he Supreme Court limited the application of waiver and estoppel in Ruddock v Detroit Life Ins Co, 209 Mich 638 ; 177 NW 242 (1920). | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Bank v. Michigan Education Association-Nea
green
2 sentences2025Bank v Mich Educ Ass’n-NEA, 315 Mich App 496, 499 ; 892 NW2d 1 (2016). -4- 2025Bank v Mich Educ Ass’n-NEA, 315 Mich App 496, 499 ; 892 NW2d 1 (2016). -4- | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Lee v. Evergreen Regency Cooperative
green
2 sentences2023Consequently, except under limited circumstances not applicable here, 2 the mend- the-hold doctrine cannot be used to broaden policy coverage to cover risks not included in the 2 See Lee v Evergreen Regency Co-op & Mgt Sys, Inc, 151 Mich App 281, 286-287 ; 390 NW2d 183 (1986) (noting two limited classes of cases in which estoppel can be used “to bring within coverage risks not covered by the policy terms.”). -7- policy. 2023Consequently, except under limited circumstances not applicable here, 2 the mend- the-hold doctrine cannot be used to broaden policy coverage to cover risks not included in the 2 See Lee v Evergreen Regency Co-op & Mgt Sys, Inc, 151 Mich App 281, 286-287 ; 390 NW2d 183 (1986) (noting two limited classes of cases in which estoppel can be used “to bring within coverage risks not covered by the policy terms.”). -7- policy. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
South MacOmb Disposal Authority v. American Insurance
green
2 sentences2022The mend-the-hold doctrine has also been applied in the insurance context: This court has many times held, and it must be accepted as the settled law of this state, that, when a loss under an insurance policy has occurred and payment refused for reasons stated, good faith requires that the company shall fully apprise the insured of all the defenses it intends to rely upon, and its failure to do so is, in legal effect, a waiver, and estops it from maintaining any defenses to an action on the policy other than those of which it has thus given notice. [Smith v Grange Mut Fire Ins Co of Mich, 234 2022The mend-the-hold doctrine has also been applied in the insurance context: This court has many times held, and it must be accepted as the settled law of this state, that, when a loss under an insurance policy has occurred and payment refused for reasons stated, good faith requires that the company shall fully apprise the insured of all the defenses it intends to rely upon, and its failure to do so is, in legal effect, a waiver, and estops it from maintaining any defenses to an action on the policy other than those of which it has thus given notice. [Smith v Grange Mut Fire Ins Co of Mich, 234 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.