 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Grosse Pointe Park v. Michigan Municipal Liability & Property Pool10/30/2003
inion skips the essential step that only allows use of limited extrinsic evidence (facts regarding plaintiff's sewage discharge) to determine if the contract's language "could reasonably be understood in different ways." Raska v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Michigan, 412 Mich 355, 362; 314 NW2d 440 (1982). Instead, it sends the trial court venturing beyond the contract's bounds in search of potential ambiguities that may lurk among the parties' extraneous dealings. Straightforward application of the contract's plain language results in the inescapable conclusion that the parties intended to exclude coverage for waste water discharge, so the trial court's venture could only result in a finding inconsistent with the contract's clear language. Therefore, a deeper delve into extrinsic evidence is neither productive nor permitted. McKusick v Travelers Indemnity Co, 246 Mich App 329, 338; 632 NW2d 525 (2001). No latent ambiguity exists here, so the contract is closed to judicial renovation. Id.
The majority opinion also misapplies the estoppel doctrine. Barring egregious, inequitable action by the insurer, the doctrine does not apply to expand a policy's express coverage. Kirschner v Process Design Associates, Inc, 459 Mich 587, 594; 592 NW2d 707 (1999). Rather, the law calls us to apply clear exclusions as written. Group Ins Co v Czopek , 440 Mich 590, 597; 489 NW2d 444 (1992). We have previously held that the payment of benefits on a claim did not render inequitable the later assertion of a policy's exclusion against that claim. Calhoun v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 177 Mich App 85, 441 NW2d 54 (1989). Plaintiff argues an even weaker case for estoppel here. Plaintiff cites defendant's various methods of handling other factually distinct policy claims as the inequitable behavior that prejudicially induced it to reasonably believe defendant would pay the instant claims. Plaintiff makes this argument despite the fact that defendant preemptively retained its right to assert the pollution exclusion against the present claims. Because plaintiff fails to show that defendant's behavior rose even to the level of inequity found insufficient in Calhoun , it follows that the trial court erred when it applied estoppel to this case, and the majority errs when it holds that a question of fact exists regarding estoppel's potential applicability.
Because the contract does not contain any ambiguity and estoppel clearly does not apply, I would apply the contract's language as written and remand for an entry of judgment in defendant's favor.
Peter D. O'Connell
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|