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.
18 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1937–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Foremost Insurance v. Allstate Insurancegreen2 sentences2022In other words, there are two contracts of insurance within the policy—one with the lienholder and the insurer and the other with the insured and the insurer.[22] Thus, the standard mortgage clause presented in this case “effects a new and independent insurance [that] protects the mortgagee as stipulated, and which cannot be destroyed or impaired by the mortgagor’s acts or by those of any person other than the mortgagee or someone authorized to act for him and in his behalf.” 23 Consequently, when 21 Emphasis added. 22 Foremost Ins Co, 439 Mich at 384 (citations omitted). 23 Id. at 389-390 (qu 2022In other words, there are two contracts of insurance within the policy—one with the lienholder and the insurer and the other with the insured and the insurer.[22] Thus, the standard mortgage clause presented in this case “effects a new and independent insurance [that] protects the mortgagee as stipulated, and which cannot be destroyed or impaired by the mortgagor’s acts or by those of any person other than the mortgagee or someone authorized to act for him and in his behalf.” 23 Consequently, when 21 Emphasis added. 22 Foremost Ins Co, 439 Mich at 384 (citations omitted). 23 Id. at 389-390 (qu | 4 | 6 |
Ramon v. Farm Bureau Insurancegreen2 sentences2019Id. at 57, 66-67 . 2019Id. at 57, 66-67 . | 3 | 3 |
Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Ohio Casualty Insurancegreen2 sentences2001See Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass’n v Ohio Casualty Ins Co, 46 Mich App 587, 590-591 ; 208 NW2d 573 (1973) (establishing that a mortgagee’s foreclosure on the insured property is generally regarded merely as an increase in ownership, rather than a “change in ownership” necessitating notice under a standard mortgage clause). 8 We note that the parties’ additional argument regarding whether plaintiff could reasonably expect coverage under the circumstances does not change that result. 2001See Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass’n v Ohio Casualty Ins Co, 46 Mich App 587, 590-591 ; 208 NW2d 573 (1973) (establishing that a mortgagee’s foreclosure on the insured property is generally regarded merely as an increase in ownership, rather than a “change in ownership” necessitating notice under a standard mortgage clause). 8 We note that the parties’ additional argument regarding whether plaintiff could reasonably expect coverage under the circumstances does not change that result. | 1 | 2 |
Booker T. Theatre Co. v. Great American Insurancegreen2 sentences1995Booker T, supra. Indeed, other jurisdictions that have considered the issue have held that a mortgagee is not entitled to recover the contractual finance charge accruing since the date of a fire when " '[t]he amount payable as "interests may appear” under the mortgage clause of an insurance contract is measured by the indebtedness which the mortgagor owes under his note and mortgage at the time of the loss.’ ” Midwest Federal Savings & Loan *606 Ass’n of Minneapolis v West Bend Mutual Ins Co, 407 NW2d 690, 696 (Minn App, 1987), quoting Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v Iowa Nat’l Mutual 1976The majority correctly recognizes that a standard mortgage clause, as distinguished from an open loss payable clause, creates a separate contract between the mortgagee and the insurer, Booker T Theatre Co v Great American Insurance Co of New York, 369 Mich 583 ; 120 NW2d 776 (1963); 5A Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 3401; 11 Couch on Insurance (2d ed), § 42:694. | 1 | 2 |
Vormelker v. Oleksinskigreen2 sentences1992See also Vormelker v Oleksinski, 40 Mich App 618, 624 ; 199 NW2d 287 (1972); Cole v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 116 Mich App 51, 55 ; 321 NW2d 839 (1982); Heritage Federal Savings Bank v Cincinnati Ins Co, 180 Mich App 720, 723-724 ; 448 NW2d 39 (1989). [12] Couch, n 8 supra, § 42:728, pp 763-764. [13] Lehto, The standard mortgage clause, n 10 supra. [14] Id. [15] The exclusion barring a lender's claim for the insured's conversion, embezzlement, or secretion of its automobile has been part of the standard loss payable clause included in automobile insurance policies since at least 1920. 1992See also Vormelker v Oleksinski, 40 Mich App 618, 624 ; 199 NW2d 287 (1972); Cole v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 116 Mich App 51, 55 ; 321 NW2d 839 (1982); Heritage Federal Savings Bank v Cincinnati Ins Co, 180 Mich App 720, 723-724 ; 448 NW2d 39 (1989). [12] Couch, n 8 supra, § 42:728, pp 763-764. [13] Lehto, The standard mortgage clause, n 10 supra. [14] Id. [15] The exclusion barring a lender's claim for the insured's conversion, embezzlement, or secretion of its automobile has been part of the standard loss payable clause included in automobile insurance policies since at least 1920. | 1 | 2 |
Singer v. American States Insurancegreen2 sentences2014In other words, there are two contracts of insurance within the policy — one with the lienholder and the insurer and the other with the insured and the insurer. [Id. at 384.] See also Singer v American States Ins, 245 Mich App 370, 379 ; 631 NW2d 34 (2001) (“It is well settled that a policy’s standard mortgage clause constitutes a separate and distinct contract between a mortgagee and an insurance company for payment on the mortgage.”). 2014In other words, there are two contracts of insurance within the policy — one with the lienholder and the insurer and the other with the insured and the insurer. [Id. at 384.] See also Singer v American States Ins, 245 Mich App 370, 379 ; 631 NW2d 34 (2001) (“It is well settled that a policy’s standard mortgage clause constitutes a separate and distinct contract between a mortgagee and an insurance company for payment on the mortgage.”). | 1 | 1 |
MFA Mutual Insurance Company v. Huddlestongreen1 sentence2000See Commercial Standard Ins Co of Fort Worth, Texas v Hitson, 73 NM 328 , 332; 388 P2d 56 (1963) (Interpreting a standard mortgage clause, the court stated “[a]s we view this language, it clearly states that where the payment has been made to the mortgagee, but the insurance coverage had been voided for some reason, there was present a right in the insurance companies to recover back from the ‘mortgagor or owner’ ”); MFA Mut Ins Co v Huddleston, 459 SW2d 104, 106 (Mo App, 1970) (“[Wjhere the policy is ‘void’ as to the insured . . . , the Company [insurer] may acquire the mortgage security upon | 1 | 1 |
United Stores of America, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurancegreen1 sentence2000See also Estate of Ensz v Brown Ins Agency, Inc, 66 Wis 2d 193, 204 ; 223 NW2d 903 (1974) (The right of an insurer to be subrogated or to take an assignment under a standard mortgage clause is recognized only “where it can be shown that the insurer is not liable under the policy to the mortgagor.” The equity involved is that the insurer is permitted to foreclose on a mortgage so that the mortgagor, who has not complied with the terms of his insurance contract, will not receive any benefit); United Stores of America, Inc v Fireman’s Fund Ins Co, 290 F Supp 61, 64 (ED Mo, 1968) (“The authorities | 1 | 1 |
Christopher & John, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.green1 sentence2000Christopher & John, Inc v Maryland Casualty Co, 484 F Supp 609, 611 (SD NY, 1980), quoting Grady v Utica Mut Ins Co, 69 AD2d 668, 673-674 ; 419 NYS2d 565 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Ensz v. Brown Insurance Agencygreen2 sentences2000See also Estate of Ensz v Brown Ins Agency, Inc, 66 Wis 2d 193, 204 ; 223 NW2d 903 (1974) (The right of an insurer to be subrogated or to take an assignment under a standard mortgage clause is recognized only “where it can be shown that the insurer is not liable under the policy to the mortgagor.” The equity involved is that the insurer is permitted to foreclose on a mortgage so that the mortgagor, who has not complied with the terms of his insurance contract, will not receive any benefit); United Stores of America, Inc v Fireman’s Fund Ins Co, 290 F Supp 61, 64 (ED Mo, 1968) (“The authorities 2000See also Estate of Ensz v Brown Ins Agency, Inc, 66 Wis 2d 193, 204 ; 223 NW2d 903 (1974) (The right of an insurer to be subrogated or to take an assignment under a standard mortgage clause is recognized only “where it can be shown that the insurer is not liable under the policy to the mortgagor.” The equity involved is that the insurer is permitted to foreclose on a mortgage so that the mortgagor, who has not complied with the terms of his insurance contract, will not receive any benefit); United Stores of America, Inc v Fireman’s Fund Ins Co, 290 F Supp 61, 64 (ED Mo, 1968) (“The authorities | 1 | 1 |
Giberson v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Waterloogreen1 sentence1995Booker T, supra. Indeed, other jurisdictions that have considered the issue have held that a mortgagee is not entitled to recover the contractual finance charge accruing since the date of a fire when " '[t]he amount payable as "interests may appear” under the mortgage clause of an insurance contract is measured by the indebtedness which the mortgagor owes under his note and mortgage at the time of the loss.’ ” Midwest Federal Savings & Loan *606 Ass’n of Minneapolis v West Bend Mutual Ins Co, 407 NW2d 690, 696 (Minn App, 1987), quoting Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v Iowa Nat’l Mutual | 1 | 1 |
Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association of Minneapolis v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co.green1 sentence1995Booker T, supra. Indeed, other jurisdictions that have considered the issue have held that a mortgagee is not entitled to recover the contractual finance charge accruing since the date of a fire when " '[t]he amount payable as "interests may appear” under the mortgage clause of an insurance contract is measured by the indebtedness which the mortgagor owes under his note and mortgage at the time of the loss.’ ” Midwest Federal Savings & Loan *606 Ass’n of Minneapolis v West Bend Mutual Ins Co, 407 NW2d 690, 696 (Minn App, 1987), quoting Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v Iowa Nat’l Mutual | 1 | 1 |
MINN. FEDERAL SAV. v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins.green1 sentence1995Booker T, supra. Indeed, other jurisdictions that have considered the issue have held that a mortgagee is not entitled to recover the contractual finance charge accruing since the date of a fire when " '[t]he amount payable as "interests may appear” under the mortgage clause of an insurance contract is measured by the indebtedness which the mortgagor owes under his note and mortgage at the time of the loss.’ ” Midwest Federal Savings & Loan *606 Ass’n of Minneapolis v West Bend Mutual Ins Co, 407 NW2d 690, 696 (Minn App, 1987), quoting Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v Iowa Nat’l Mutual | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Doe, Alias Meyergreen | 1 | 1 |
| GUARDIAN SAV. & LOAN ASS'N. v. Reserve Ins. Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lash v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences2022But this by itself would constitute no more than a breach of the contract or a refusal of performance, while the idea of rescission involves the additional and distinguishing element of a restoration of the status quo. [Lash v Allstate Ins Co, 210 Mich App 98, 102 ; 532 NW2d 869 (1995) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] Despite marginal differences, if any, between the two concepts, we use the term “rescind” to indicate that the policy at issue was both rescinded and voided ab initio. 2 to a “standard mortgage clause.” 2 This is a clause intended to create two contracts of insurance with 2022But this by itself would constitute no more than a breach of the contract or a refusal of performance, while the idea of rescission involves the additional and distinguishing element of a restoration of the status quo. [Lash v Allstate Ins Co, 210 Mich App 98, 102 ; 532 NW2d 869 (1995) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] Despite marginal differences, if any, between the two concepts, we use the term “rescind” to indicate that the policy at issue was both rescinded and voided ab initio. 2 to a “standard mortgage clause.” 2 This is a clause intended to create two contracts of insurance with | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Wilson v. Home Owners Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2022In Wilson v 2 Home Owners Mut Ins Co, 148 Mich App 485, 490-491 ; 384 NW2d 807 (1986), our Court of Appeals correctly explained that the standard mortgage clause “provides that an insurer may make a payment of loss to a mortgagee, and to the extent of that payment, may be subrogated to all the mortgagee’s rights of recovery or the insurer may pay off the mortgage debt and require an assignment of the mortgage.” In other words, the insurer “choose[s] between pursuit of its rights as a subrogee of a mortgagee or to pursue its rights as an assignee of the mortgagee.” Id. at 491 . 2022In Wilson v 2 Home Owners Mut Ins Co, 148 Mich App 485, 490-491 ; 384 NW2d 807 (1986), our Court of Appeals correctly explained that the standard mortgage clause “provides that an insurer may make a payment of loss to a mortgagee, and to the extent of that payment, may be subrogated to all the mortgagee’s rights of recovery or the insurer may pay off the mortgage debt and require an assignment of the mortgage.” In other words, the insurer “choose[s] between pursuit of its rights as a subrogee of a mortgagee or to pursue its rights as an assignee of the mortgagee.” Id. at 491 . | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Rohlman v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance
green
2 sentences2022In its complaint, Meemic cited the standard mortgage clause and claimed it “is entitled to be subrogated to the extent of its payments to all rights that the mortgagee has under the mortgage on the property and has a full assignment and transfer of the mortgage and all securities.” This allegation, which was not pleaded in the alternative, should give us pause. 2 The inclusion of a standard mortgage clause is mandated by MCL 500.2833(1)(j) for fire insurance policies, and “it is to be presumed that the parties contracted with the intention of executing a policy satisfying the statutory require 2022In its complaint, Meemic cited the standard mortgage clause and claimed it “is entitled to be subrogated to the extent of its payments to all rights that the mortgagee has under the mortgage on the property and has a full assignment and transfer of the mortgage and all securities.” This allegation, which was not pleaded in the alternative, should give us pause. 2 The inclusion of a standard mortgage clause is mandated by MCL 500.2833(1)(j) for fire insurance policies, and “it is to be presumed that the parties contracted with the intention of executing a policy satisfying the statutory require | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Smith v. Globe Life Insurance
green
2 sentences2022This doctrine is sometimes spoken of as “legal subrogation,” and has long been applied by courts of equity. [Citation omitted.] 12 Meemic Ins Co v Jones, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 7, 2020 (Docket No. 346361). 13 We asked the litigants to address: [W]hether its declaration that a homeowners insurance policy was void ab initio should be considered a denial of a claim under the policy such that it may invoke its right to subrogation when it was required by a standard mortgage clause to pay the balance of the appellee’s mortgage. [Meemic Ins Co v Jones, 507 Mich 854 ( 2022This doctrine is sometimes spoken of as “legal subrogation,” and has long been applied by courts of equity. [Citation omitted.] 12 Meemic Ins Co v Jones, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 7, 2020 (Docket No. 346361). 13 We asked the litigants to address: [W]hether its declaration that a homeowners insurance policy was void ab initio should be considered a denial of a claim under the policy such that it may invoke its right to subrogation when it was required by a standard mortgage clause to pay the balance of the appellee’s mortgage. [Meemic Ins Co v Jones, 507 Mich 854 ( | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Cole v. Michigan Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences1992See also Vormelker v Oleksinski, 40 Mich App 618, 624 ; 199 NW2d 287 (1972); Cole v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 116 Mich App 51, 55 ; 321 NW2d 839 (1982); Heritage Federal Savings Bank v Cincinnati Ins Co, 180 Mich App 720, 723-724 ; 448 NW2d 39 (1989). [12] Couch, n 8 supra, § 42:728, pp 763-764. [13] Lehto, The standard mortgage clause, n 10 supra. [14] Id. [15] The exclusion barring a lender's claim for the insured's conversion, embezzlement, or secretion of its automobile has been part of the standard loss payable clause included in automobile insurance policies since at least 1920. 1992See also Vormelker v Oleksinski, 40 Mich App 618, 624 ; 199 NW2d 287 (1972); Cole v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 116 Mich App 51, 55 ; 321 NW2d 839 (1982); Heritage Federal Savings Bank v Cincinnati Ins Co, 180 Mich App 720, 723-724 ; 448 NW2d 39 (1989). [12] Couch, n 8 supra, § 42:728, pp 763-764. [13] Lehto, The standard mortgage clause, n 10 supra. [14] Id. [15] The exclusion barring a lender's claim for the insured's conversion, embezzlement, or secretion of its automobile has been part of the standard loss payable clause included in automobile insurance policies since at least 1920. | 3 | 1992–2001 |
Citizens State Bank v. State Mutual Rodded Fire Ins.
green
2 sentences1992For an interesting and complete historical review of mortgage arrangements, see Lehto, The standard mortgage clause under attack: The lender's insurance claim when a borrower commits arson, 66 U Det L R 603, 607 (1989). [11] Citizens State Bank v State Mut Fire Ins Co, 276 Mich 62, 67-69 ; 267 NW 785 (1936); Pink v Smith, 281 Mich 107, 111-112 ; 274 NW 727 (1937); Cottrell v Clark, 126 Mich App 276, 280 ; 337 NW2d 58 (1983). 1992For an interesting and complete historical review of mortgage arrangements, see Lehto, The standard mortgage clause under attack: The lender's insurance claim when a borrower commits arson, 66 U Det L R 603, 607 (1989). [11] Citizens State Bank v State Mut Fire Ins Co, 276 Mich 62, 67-69 ; 267 NW 785 (1936); Pink v Smith, 281 Mich 107, 111-112 ; 274 NW 727 (1937); Cottrell v Clark, 126 Mich App 276, 280 ; 337 NW2d 58 (1983). | 3 | 1937–1992 |
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Null
green
2 sentences2019Furthermore, because the lienholder has separate and distinct contractual rights, “a lienholder is not subject to the exclusions available to the insurer against the insured,” and “the lienholder’s interest in the insured’s property will not be avoided by any acts, representations, or omissions of the insured.” Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Null, 304 Mich App 508, 524 ; 847 NW2d 657 (2014) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 2019Furthermore, because the lienholder has separate and distinct contractual rights, “a lienholder is not subject to the exclusions available to the insurer against the insured,” and “the lienholder’s interest in the insured’s property will not be avoided by any acts, representations, or omissions of the insured.” Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Null, 304 Mich App 508, 524 ; 847 NW2d 657 (2014) (quotation marks and citations omitted). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Better Valu Homes, Inc. v. Preferred Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2019The standard mortgage clause “gives the proceeds to the mortgagee to the extent that they equal or are less than the mortgage indebtedness of the property, and it gives the mortgagee’s claims to the proceeds priority over the competing claims to them of the mortgagor . . . .” Id. “[I]n other words, the clause gives priority to insuring the mortgage debt.” Id. 2019The standard mortgage clause “gives the proceeds to the mortgagee to the extent that they equal or are less than the mortgage indebtedness of the property, and it gives the mortgagee’s claims to the proceeds priority over the competing claims to them of the mortgagor . . . .” Id. “[I]n other words, the clause gives priority to insuring the mortgage debt.” Id. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Gibson v. Group Insurance
green
2 sentences1991Gibson, supra, pp 278-279 . 1990Gibson, supra, pp 278-279 . | 2 | 1990–1991 |
Hastings v. . Westchester Fire Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2014Since the case of Hastings [v Westchester Fire Ins Co, 73 NY 141 (1878)], the courts have declared this to be a separate contract between insurer and mortgagee and not subject to most of the defenses which the insurer might have against the mortgagor. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
City of Grosse Pointe Park v. Michigan Municipal Liability & Property Pool
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Robert and Jennifer Grunbeck v. The Dime Savings Bank of New York, Fsb
green
1 sentence2000The Com *36 mittee does not intend to exempt limitations on prepayment charges, attorney fees, late charges or similar limitations designed to protect borrowers. [Grunbeck, supra at 340 , quoting 1980 USCCAN 236, 255.] Further, we find persuasive the rationale of Judge Julian Abele Cook, Jr., of the federal district court in the Eastern District of Michigan in the case of Smith v CBS Mortgage, Docket No. 96-CZ-73266-DT, issued January 14, 1997, a similar case against Flagstar where the plaintiffs claimed that certain fees, including a $9 recording fee, charged in connection with preparing and | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Grady v. Utica Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2000Christopher & John, Inc v Maryland Casualty Co, 484 F Supp 609, 611 (SD NY, 1980), quoting Grady v Utica Mut Ins Co, 69 AD2d 668, 673-674 ; 419 NYS2d 565 (1979). 2000Christopher & John, Inc v Maryland Casualty Co, 484 F Supp 609, 611 (SD NY, 1980), quoting Grady v Utica Mut Ins Co, 69 AD2d 668, 673-674 ; 419 NYS2d 565 (1979). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
McAlpine v. State Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2000Id. at 458-459 . 2000The standard mortgage clause at issue in McAlpine, supra, is substantially similar to that at issue in the present case. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Commercial Stand. Ins. Co. of Ft. Worth, Tex. v. Hitson
green
1 sentence2000See Commercial Standard Ins Co of Fort Worth, Texas v Hitson, 73 NM 328 , 332; 388 P2d 56 (1963) (Interpreting a standard mortgage clause, the court stated “[a]s we view this language, it clearly states that where the payment has been made to the mortgagee, but the insurance coverage had been voided for some reason, there was present a right in the insurance companies to recover back from the ‘mortgagor or owner’ ”); MFA Mut Ins Co v Huddleston, 459 SW2d 104, 106 (Mo App, 1970) (“[Wjhere the policy is ‘void’ as to the insured . . . , the Company [insurer] may acquire the mortgage security upon | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hornack v. Young
green
2 sentences2000See MCR 2.118(C); Hornack v Young, 63 Mich App 650 ; 234 NW2d 746 (1975). 4 The mortgage clause in the present case provides: Loss or damage, if any, under this policy, shall be payable to the mortgagee (or trustee), named on the first page of this policy, as interest may appear, under all present or future mortgages upon the property herein described in which the aforesaid may have an interest as mortgagee (or trustee) in order of precedence of said mortgages, and this insurance as to the interest of the mortgagee (or trustee) only therein, shall not be invalidated by any act or neglect of th 2000See MCR 2.118(C); Hornack v Young, 63 Mich App 650 ; 234 NW2d 746 (1975). 4 The mortgage clause in the present case provides: Loss or damage, if any, under this policy, shall be payable to the mortgagee (or trustee), named on the first page of this policy, as interest may appear, under all present or future mortgages upon the property herein described in which the aforesaid may have an interest as mortgagee (or trustee) in order of precedence of said mortgages, and this insurance as to the interest of the mortgagee (or trustee) only therein, shall not be invalidated by any act or neglect of th | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Brown v. Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2000However, the insured property owner has no claim to the portion of the insurance proceeds attributable to the unpaid balance of the mortgage and his claim for damage to the insured property is properly reduced by that amount. [Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.] See also Brown v Frankenmuth Mut Ins Co, 187 Mich App 375, 383-384 ; 468 NW2d 243 (1991). 2000However, the insured property owner has no claim to the portion of the insurance proceeds attributable to the unpaid balance of the mortgage and his claim for damage to the insured property is properly reduced by that amount. [Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.] See also Brown v Frankenmuth Mut Ins Co, 187 Mich App 375, 383-384 ; 468 NW2d 243 (1991). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Ben-Morris Co. v. Hanover Insurance green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Pink v. Smith green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Bergman green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Cottrell v. Clark green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Tuuk v. Andersen green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Gibraltar Financial Corp. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Warren Tool Co. v. Stephenson green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Heritage Federal Savings Bank v. Cincinnati Insurance green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Miracle Boot Puller Co. v. Plastray Corp. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Buxton v. International Indemnity Co. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Fiske v. Niagara Fire Insurance green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Great American Insurance green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Washington State Bar Ass'n v. Washington Ass'n of Realtors green | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.