Auto Club defense in Michigan

1996Counsel responded that he had filed the early claim of appeal because failure to do so would have forfeited acia’s appeal of right, according to a case called Boatman v Motorists Mut Ins Co, 158 Mich App 431 ; 404 NW2d 261 (1987).

1996Counsel responded that he had filed the early claim of appeal because failure to do so would have forfeited acia’s appeal of right, according to a case called Boatman v Motorists Mut Ins Co, 158 Mich App 431 ; 404 NW2d 261 (1987).

1991In Ohio Turnpike Comm v Texaco, Inc, 35 Ohio Misc 99; 297 NE2d 557 (1973), the court implied a term requiring Texaco to sell all the gasoline that drivers on the Ohio Turnpike would purchase from Texaco Service Plazas during a gas shortage. [63] The Auto Club's motion for summary disposition did not address all the allegations of the complaint as supplemented by the answers to the interrogatories. [64] Professor Corbin stated: If a contract is such that a certain performance by one party is necessary in order to earn the compensation that has been promised him, and that performance can not be

1990The principle questions presented today, consequently, are whether the Auto Club's defense was clearly untenable as a matter of law and therefore legally insufficient with regard to plaintiff's § 3142(2) claim, Armoudlian v Zadeh, 116 Mich App 659, 672-673 ; 323 NW2d 502 (1982), and whether no possible factual development could justify recovery in defendant's favor under § 3142(2), League Life Ins Co v White, 136 Mich App 150, 152 ; 356 NW2d 12 (1984).

1990The principle questions presented today, consequently, are whether the Auto Club's defense was clearly untenable as a matter of law and therefore legally insufficient with regard to plaintiff's § 3142(2) claim, Armoudlian v Zadeh, 116 Mich App 659, 672-673 ; 323 NW2d 502 (1982), and whether no possible factual development could justify recovery in defendant's favor under § 3142(2), League Life Ins Co v White, 136 Mich App 150, 152 ; 356 NW2d 12 (1984).

1990The principle questions presented today, consequently, are whether the Auto Club's defense was clearly untenable as a matter of law and therefore legally insufficient with regard to plaintiff's § 3142(2) claim, Armoudlian v Zadeh, 116 Mich App 659, 672-673 ; 323 NW2d 502 (1982), and whether no possible factual development could justify recovery in defendant's favor under § 3142(2), League Life Ins Co v White, 136 Mich App 150, 152 ; 356 NW2d 12 (1984).

1990The principle questions presented today, consequently, are whether the Auto Club's defense was clearly untenable as a matter of law and therefore legally insufficient with regard to plaintiff's § 3142(2) claim, Armoudlian v Zadeh, 116 Mich App 659, 672-673 ; 323 NW2d 502 (1982), and whether no possible factual development could justify recovery in defendant's favor under § 3142(2), League Life Ins Co v White, 136 Mich App 150, 152 ; 356 NW2d 12 (1984).

1989The appropriate construction of the terms of an automobile insurance policy was addressed in Raska v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 412 Mich 355, 362 ; 314 NW2d 440 (1982): A contract is said to be ambiguous when its words may reasonably be understood in different ways.

1989The appropriate construction of the terms of an automobile insurance policy was addressed in Raska v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 412 Mich 355, 362 ; 314 NW2d 440 (1982): A contract is said to be ambiguous when its words may reasonably be understood in different ways.

1986In this declaratory action, the circuit court held that the parents' policies did not cover the accident, because of the owned-automobile exclusion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 142 Mich App 168 ; 368 NW2d 875 (1984).

1986In this declaratory action, the circuit court held that the parents’ policies did not cover the accident, because of the owned-automobile exclusion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 142 Mich App 168 ; 368 NW2d 875 (1984).