Titan Insurance Company v. American Country Insurance

Titan Insurance Company v. American Country Insurance

The Court denied the motion because the moving party did not demonstrate that the May 27, 2016 order was entered erroneously, and therefore reconsideration was not warranted.

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
Supreme Court Order on Motion for Reconsideration / Decision on Motion for Reconsideration
Outcome
Motion for reconsideration denied
Legal Topics
Motion for Reconsideration, Denial of Reconsideration, Supreme Court Orders, Insurance Coverage Dispute
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Appellate Practice Motion for Reconsideration Denial of Reconsideration Supreme Court Orders Insurance Coverage Dispute

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 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Supreme Court Order on Motion for Reconsideration / Decision on Motion for Reconsideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether this Court's May 27, 2016 order was entered erroneously
  2. 2 Whether reconsideration of the Court's prior order is warranted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court denied the motion because the moving party did not demonstrate that the May 27, 2016 order was entered erroneously, and therefore reconsideration was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Motion for reconsideration denied

Orders

  • The motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 27, 2016 order is denied.
  • Clerk to certify the order as a true and complete copy entered at the direction of the Court.