Narrative Opinion Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court issued an order on July 31, 2009, regarding the appeal of Doris Pernell against Allstate Insurance Company and others. The court denied the application for leave to appeal the December 2, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the issues presented did not warrant review. Justice Markman dissented, arguing for the granting of leave to appeal. He questioned the Court of Appeals' application of the precedent set in Darnell v Auto-Owners Ins Co, which dealt with liability for personal protection insurance benefits after Allstate had initially paid but later ceased payments upon finding another insurer had priority. Markman noted the relevance of Darnell was originally in the context of attorney fees and questioned its applicability to the determination of liability for actual benefits. The order was certified by Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Precedent in Insurance Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Justice Markman questioned the applicability of the precedent set in Darnell v Auto-Owners Ins Co concerning liability for personal protection insurance benefits in the context presented by this case.
Reasoning: He questioned the Court of Appeals' application of the precedent set in Darnell v Auto-Owners Ins Co, which dealt with liability for personal protection insurance benefits after Allstate had initially paid but later ceased payments upon finding another insurer had priority.
Dissent in Denial of Leave to Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Justice Markman dissented from the majority's decision, advocating for the case to be reviewed to assess the Court of Appeals' application of precedent.
Reasoning: Justice Markman dissented, arguing for the granting of leave to appeal.
Review of Court of Appeals Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Michigan Supreme Court decided not to review the Court of Appeals' decision, indicating that the issues presented in the appeal did not merit further examination.
Reasoning: The court denied the application for leave to appeal the December 2, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the issues presented did not warrant review.
Scope of Precedent Regarding Attorney Fees Versus Insurance Benefitssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The relevance of the Darnell precedent was challenged, particularly its original context concerning attorney fees, as opposed to determining liability for actual benefits.
Reasoning: Markman noted the relevance of Darnell was originally in the context of attorney fees and questioned its applicability to the determination of liability for actual benefits.