Titan Insurance Company v. American Country Insurance

Titan Insurance Company v. American Country Insurance

The Court denied the motion for reconsideration because it did not appear that the Court's May 27, 2016 order was entered erroneously.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
Titan Insurance Company v. American Country Insurance
Parties
Plaintiff Appellee: Titan Insurance Company; Defendant Appellant: American Country Insurance Company; Defendant: Safe Arrival Transportation; Defendant: Shonnise Woods; Plaintiff Appellee: Bronson Methodist Hospital; Defendant Appellee: Titan Insurance Company
Court
Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
United States
Judgment Date
6 September 2016
Case Number
152492
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion for Reconsideration Before Michigan Supreme Court (denied)
Outcome
Motion for reconsideration denied.
Legal Topics
Motion for Reconsideration, Denial of Reconsideration, Supreme Court Order
Source Language
english
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Motion for Reconsideration Denial of Reconsideration Supreme Court Order

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Titan Insurance Company

Plaintiff Appellee

American Country Insurance Company

Defendant Appellant

Safe Arrival Transportation

Defendant

Shonnise Woods

Defendant

Bronson Methodist Hospital

Plaintiff Appellee

Titan Insurance Company

Defendant Appellee

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion for Reconsideration Before Michigan Supreme Court (denied)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court's May 27, 2016 order was entered erroneously
  2. 2 Whether reconsideration should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court denied the motion for reconsideration because it did not appear that the Court's May 27, 2016 order was entered erroneously.

Court Disposition

Motion for reconsideration denied.

Orders

  • The motion for reconsideration of this Court's May 27, 2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.