insured defense in Michigan

2007The Court of Appeals, relying on Cheatum, supra at 595 , held that in order for Secura to successfully claim noncooperation of the insured as a defense, it must show that it was actually prejudiced by the noncooperation.

2007The Court of Appeals, relying on Cheatum, supra at 595 , held that in order for Secura to successfully claim noncooperation of the insured as a defense, it must show that it was actually prejudiced by the noncooperation.

2007As I stated in my dissenting statement in Qarana v North Pointe Ins Co, 474 Mich 1015 , 1016 (2006), I question the continued validity of Cheatum, supra: I question the continuing validity of Allen, supra, especially following this Court’s decision in Rory [v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457 (2005)].

2007As I stated in my dissenting statement in Qarana v North Pointe Ins Co, 474 Mich 1015 , 1016 (2006), I question the continued validity of Cheatum, supra: I question the continuing validity of Allen, supra, especially following this Court’s decision in Rory [v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457 (2005)].

1985City Poultry & Egg Co v Hawkeye Casualty Co, 297 Mich 509 ; 298 NW 114 (1941).

1985City Poultry & Egg Co v Hawkeye Casualty Co, 297 Mich 509 ; 298 NW 114 (1941).

2025Relatedly, given the trial court’s holding that defendant is entitled to reimbursement, if defendant were to bring a collections action against plaintiff to recoup overpayments, see, e.g., Michigan Ed Employees Mut Ins Co v Morris, 460 Mich 180, 199 ; 596 NW2d 142 (1999) (explaining that an insurer who paid duplicate benefits to an insured in violation of MCL 500.3109(1) may recover the overpayments under a theory of unjust enrichment), plaintiff would be collaterally estopped from relitigating whether defendant was entitled to that reimbursement.

2025Relatedly, given the trial court’s holding that defendant is entitled to reimbursement, if defendant were to bring a collections action against plaintiff to recoup overpayments, see, e.g., Michigan Ed Employees Mut Ins Co v Morris, 460 Mich 180, 199 ; 596 NW2d 142 (1999) (explaining that an insurer who paid duplicate benefits to an insured in violation of MCL 500.3109(1) may recover the overpayments under a theory of unjust enrichment), plaintiff would be collaterally estopped from relitigating whether defendant was entitled to that reimbursement.

2023See Cooley v Mid-Century Ins Co, 52 Mich App 612 , 615- 616; 218 NW2d 103 (1974) (“An insurer who wrongfully refuses to defend an action against the insured, on the ground that the action was not within the coverage of the policy, is liable for reasonable attorney fees incurred by the insured in the defense of the action brought against them.”).7 Further, in any case involving a request for attorney fees, “the burden of proving the reasonableness of the requested fees rests with the party requesting them.” Smith, 481 Mich at 528-529 (opinion by TAYLOR, C.J.) In Smith, the controlling opinion o

2023See Cooley v Mid-Century Ins Co, 52 Mich App 612 , 615- 616; 218 NW2d 103 (1974) (“An insurer who wrongfully refuses to defend an action against the insured, on the ground that the action was not within the coverage of the policy, is liable for reasonable attorney fees incurred by the insured in the defense of the action brought against them.”).7 Further, in any case involving a request for attorney fees, “the burden of proving the reasonableness of the requested fees rests with the party requesting them.” Smith, 481 Mich at 528-529 (opinion by TAYLOR, C.J.) In Smith, the controlling opinion o

2017Similarly, in Jones v Jackson Nat’l Life Ins Co, unpublished opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, issued June 20, 1994 (Docket Nos. 93-1503 and 93- 1528), p 10-13; 27 F3d 566 (1994), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that upon its own review of Michigan law that there was no prejudice requirement for an insured to claim that an insurer waived any defense not explicitly mentioned in its first letter denying coverage.2 In that case, the insurer’s first denial letter had informed its insured’s spouse that it was denying payment under th

2017See also Potesta v United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co, 202 W Va 308, 314-318; 504 SE2d 135 (1998) (discussing the common law application of the principles of waiver and estoppel in this context and holding that while prejudice on the part of the insured is a requirement in order to assert estoppel it is not a requirement for an insured to assert waiver). -3- Defendant argues in the alternative that it cannot be found to have waived any defenses not specifically stated in its initial denial letter because that letter contained the following general reservation of rights language: By stating t

2008Meirthew, supra at 36-38 .

1999Interest paid pursuant to this section shall be offset by any award of interest that is payable by the insurer pursuant to the award. [Emphasis added.] In Yaldo v North Pointe Ins Co, 457 Mich 341, 348-349 ; 578 NW2d 274 (1998), the Supreme Court recently addressed the question whether the twelve percent interest allowed under MCL 500.2006(4); MSA 24.12006(4) is available to an insured only when the claim for coverage is not reasonably in dispute.

1999Interest paid pursuant to this section shall be offset by any award of interest that is payable by the insurer pursuant to the award. [Emphasis added.] In Yaldo v North Pointe Ins Co, 457 Mich 341, 348-349 ; 578 NW2d 274 (1998), the Supreme Court recently addressed the question whether the twelve percent interest allowed under MCL 500.2006(4); MSA 24.12006(4) is available to an insured only when the claim for coverage is not reasonably in dispute.

1997Id. at 519. 8 Thus, if plaintiff had, at the trustee’s request, given the trustee the funds to pay off a particular creditor’s claim against the bankruptcy estate, then under the holding of Leser, supra, she would be entitled to stand in the shoes of that creditor.

1996Finally, the Supreme Court noted that allowing the insurer to stand in the shoes of the insured under the doctrine of equitable subrogation best serves the public policy underlying the attorney-client relationship and properly imposes the social costs of malpractice where they belong. 438 Mich. at 521 , 475 N.W.2d 294 .

1996Finally, the Supreme Court noted that allowing the insurer to stand in the shoes of the insured under the doctrine of equitable subrogation best serves the public policy underlying the attorney-client relationship and properly imposes the social costs of malpractice where they belong. 438 Mich. at 521 , 475 N.W.2d 294 .

1984Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exchange v Ayvazian, 62 Mich App 94, 99-100 ; 233 NW2d 200 (1975); Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co v Latham, 103 Mich App 66, 68 ; 302 NW2d 329 (1981).

1984Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exchange v Ayvazian, 62 Mich App 94, 99-100 ; 233 NW2d 200 (1975); Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co v Latham, 103 Mich App 66, 68 ; 302 NW2d 329 (1981).

1984Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exchange v Ayvazian, 62 Mich App 94, 99-100 ; 233 NW2d 200 (1975); Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co v Latham, 103 Mich App 66, 68 ; 302 NW2d 329 (1981).

1984Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exchange v Ayvazian, 62 Mich App 94, 99-100 ; 233 NW2d 200 (1975); Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co v Latham, 103 Mich App 66, 68 ; 302 NW2d 329 (1981).

1983Burgess v American Fidelity Fire Ins Co, 107 Mich App 625, 628 ; 310 NW2d 23 (1981).

1983Burgess v American Fidelity Fire Ins Co, 107 Mich App 625, 628 ; 310 NW2d 23 (1981).

1975Defendant argues that when the policy contains language similar to the "Loss Payable” clause, misconduct by the insured does bar recovery by other interest holders because his rights are no greater than the mortgagor, Jaskulski v Citizens’ Mutual Fire Ins Co, 131 Mich 603 ; 92 NW 98 (1902).

1975Defendant argues that when the policy contains language similar to the "Loss Payable” clause, misconduct by the insured does bar recovery by other interest holders because his rights are no greater than the mortgagor, Jaskulski v Citizens’ Mutual Fire Ins Co, 131 Mich 603 ; 92 NW 98 (1902).

1971Plaintiff asserts that it would be against the public policy of this state to insure against criminal acts committed by the insured and that this rule is applicable to the instant case, and cites several cases in support of its position which we deal with in order. (1) Acme Finance Company v. National Life Company (1948), 118 Colo 445 ( 195 P2d 728 ), was an action by a criminal to recover for his wrecked automobile under the collision clause of an automobile insurance policy.