TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Vestevich v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

Vestevich v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Vestevich v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 209 N.W.2d 486 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 24, 1973
Docket
No. 14742
Judges
Bashara, Brennan, O'Hara
Citations
209 N.W.2d 48647 Mich. App. 4901973 Mich. App. LEXIS 1318

Opinion — Brennan

V. J. Brennan, J.

Two adjacent residences, owned by the plaintiff and insured by the defendant, were damaged by a furnace explosion on *491 February 7, 1971. Defendant denied liability by a letter dated December 9, 1971, and received by the plaintiff on December 14, 1971. Plaintiff commenced this suit for compensation under the policy on May 5,1972.

Defendant moved for accelerated judgment (GCR 1963, 116.1) alleging that plaintiff’s claim was barred by the one-year time limitation in the statutory policy of insurance:

"No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless * * * commenced within twelve months next after inception of the loss.” MCLA 500.2832; MSA 24.12832.

The trial court held that receipt of notice by the plaintiff 50 days before the expiration of the 1-year period of limitation allowed the plaintiff a reasonable time in which to file his suit. The trial court accordingly granted defendant’s motion for accelerated judgment, and plaintiff now appeals challenging this decision.

In Friedberg v Ins Co of North America, 257 Mich 291 (1932), our Supreme Court held that a denial of liability less than 30 days from the expiration of the 1-year limitation did not allow the insured a reasonable time in which to commence suit, and that the insurer was estopped from asserting that limitation. A period of "about two months” between the termination of negotiations and the expiration of the one-year limitation has been held "reasonable.”

Dahrooge v Rochester German Ins Co, 177 Mich 442 (1913). The 50-55 day period in this case falls between those two limits; neither the parties nor this Court has uncovered any more explicit authority. Therefore, in reliance on our collective judicial judgment, we *492 have simply concluded that the trial court was correct. Plaintiff had ample time in which to commence this litigation within the one-year period of limitation.

Affirmed.

All concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1975: 11976: 119752026peak 1975 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tom Thomas Organization, Inc. v. Reliance Insurance242 N.W.2d 396 (Mich. 1976)
  2. Fulton v. Citizens Mutual Insurance233 N.W.2d 820 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)

Most recent

  1. Tom Thomas Organization, Inc. v. Reliance Insurance242 N.W.2d 396 (Mich. 1976)
  2. Fulton v. Citizens Mutual Insurance233 N.W.2d 820 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Dahrooge v. Rochester German Ins., 48 L.R.A.N.S. 906 (Mich. 1913) 36
Friedberg v. Ins. Co. of North Am., 241 N.W. 183 (Mich. 1932) 21

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list