Farm Bureau v Holstine, Court of Appeals Docket No. 314652
Sep 02, 2014OUTCOME: Win
Declaratory action: Whether business pursuit exclusion precludes coverage under homeowners policy.
East Lansing, MI
Appeals Lawyer at East Lansing, MI
Practice Areas: Appeals, Insurance, Commercial
OUTCOME: Win
Declaratory action: Whether business pursuit exclusion precludes coverage under homeowners policy.
OUTCOME: Win
Equine Liability: Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the bench trial ruling that the stable was liable for injuries suffered by the plaintiff.
OUTCOME: Win, lv den 11/25/14
Child custody: whether the trial court properly dismissed defendant mother's request for judicial hearing based on the failure to comply with the court's order.
OUTCOME: Win
Whether the Court of Appeals should grant plaintiff's delayed application for leave to appeal where plaintiff failed to establish the factual premise of his claimed errors.
OUTCOME: Win
Declaratory action: Whether the adult children were entitled to claim coverage under the policy insuring their deceased father when there was no evidence that they had informed the insurer of their fa ... ther's passing.
OUTCOME: Win, lv den 9/29/2014
Whether plaintiff, a non-resident, could claim Michigan PIP benefits under his mother's policy when he had taken possession of the vehicle in Nevada, titled the vehicle in Nevada, registered the vehicl ... e in Nevada, and insured the vehicle in Nevada. Plaintiff and his mother claimed that she left portions of the Michigan title transfer blank because she never intended to transfer title of the vehicle to plaintiff.
OUTCOME: Win, lv den 3/28/14
Declaratory action: Whether damage by owned pets exclusion precluded coverage when pet dog sprayed by skunk ran through house.
OUTCOME: Win, lv den 3/28/14
Whether transportation companies were properly dismissed as defendants where plaintiffs did not bring their pollution claims until long after the period of limitation in the no-fault act had passed.
OUTCOME: Win, lv den 12/23/13
Whether defendant could be held liable for plaintiff's injuries where plaintiff's own expert opined that the danger was not readily apparent and could only be recognized by an engineer.
OUTCOME: Win
Whether the no-fault insurer was liable for the entire cost of the modified van or only for the van's modifications.