Farm Bureau motion in Michigan

2025Its decision to do so fell within its considerable discretion to grant reconsideration, see Sanders, 323 Mich App at 264-265 , and it was otherwise free to revisit Farm Bureau’s reconsideration motion that it previously denied, see Kokx, 241 Mich App at 659 .

2025Its decision to do so fell within its considerable discretion to grant reconsideration, see Sanders, 323 Mich App at 264-265 , and it was otherwise free to revisit Farm Bureau’s reconsideration motion that it previously denied, see Kokx, 241 Mich App at 659 .

2020“An insurance policy is a contract that should be read as a whole to determine what the parties intended to agree on.” McKusick v Travelers Indemnity Co, 246 Mich App 329, 332 ; 632 NW2d 525 (2001).

2020“An insurance policy is a contract that should be read as a whole to determine what the parties intended to agree on.” McKusick v Travelers Indemnity Co, 246 Mich App 329, 332 ; 632 NW2d 525 (2001).

2020Consequently, the trial court erred by denying Farm Bureau’s motion for summary disposition regarding Bronson’s claims based upon the void pretreatment assignments executed by the insureds. 4 “Although MCR 7.215(C)(1) provides that unpublished opinions are not binding under the rule of stare decisis, a court may nonetheless consider such opinions for their instructive or persuasive value.” Cox v Hartman, 322 Mich App 292, 307 ; 911 NW2d 219 (2017). -7- Again, our Supreme Court denied leave in the case.

2020Consequently, the trial court erred by denying Farm Bureau’s motion for summary disposition regarding Bronson’s claims based upon the void pretreatment assignments executed by the insureds. 4 “Although MCR 7.215(C)(1) provides that unpublished opinions are not binding under the rule of stare decisis, a court may nonetheless consider such opinions for their instructive or persuasive value.” Cox v Hartman, 322 Mich App 292, 307 ; 911 NW2d 219 (2017). -7- Again, our Supreme Court denied leave in the case.

2020Ultimately, Farm Bureau’s motion in limine asked the trial court: 4 The “amount generally billed” is a specific figure that hospitals must calculate for tax purposes. 5 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). -5- 1.

2020Ultimately, Farm Bureau’s motion in limine asked the trial court: 4 The “amount generally billed” is a specific figure that hospitals must calculate for tax purposes. 5 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). -5- 1.

2020Relying on this language, the trial court concluded that the allegations were sufficient to put appellants on notice of Farm Bureau’s claim that the insurance policy’s exclusion prohibited coverage. -5- provision violates law or one of the traditional defenses to the enforceability of a contract applies, a court must construe and apply unambiguous contract provisions as written.” Id.

2019See Bronson Healthcare Group, Inc v Mich Assigned Claims Plan, 323 Mich App 302, 305 ; 917 NW2d 682 (2018).

2019Relying on Roger Williams Ins Co v Carrington, 43 Mich 252 ; 5 NW 303 (1880), the trial court ruled that Bronson’s breach of contract claim in Count I, based on the registration release forms’ assignments, could proceed because Farm Bureau’s insurance policies’ antiassignment clauses were unenforceable.

2019Relying on Roger Williams Ins Co v Carrington, 43 Mich 252 ; 5 NW 303 (1880), the trial court ruled that Bronson’s breach of contract claim in Count I, based on the registration release forms’ assignments, could proceed because Farm Bureau’s insurance policies’ antiassignment clauses were unenforceable.

2000Id. at 594 .