Barza v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road Commission

    477 Mich. 197 (Mich. 2007)   Cited 262 times
    Holding that the 120–day notice provision must be strictly construed and overruling Hobbs and Brown

    1104 (1892); Turner v Fidelity Cas Co, ; (1897); Harris v Phoenix Accident Sick Benefit Ass'n, ; (1907); Friedberg v Ins Co of North America, ; (1932); Hall v Metropolitan Life Ins Co, ; (1936); Barza v Metropolitan 281 Mich 532 275 NW 238 369 Mich 141 119 NW2d 622 412 Mich 335 314 NW2d 184 473 Mich 275 411 Mich 321 586 NW2d 766 768.13 427 Mich 505 398 NW2d 368 696 NW2d 646 600.5827 600.5805 Life Ins Co, ; (1937); and Bashans v Metro Mut Ins Co, ; (1963). Herweyer implicitly overruled State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co v Ruuska, ;

  2. Rory v. Continental Insurance

    473 Mich. 457 (Mich. 2005)   Cited 859 times
    Holding that parties are free to contract around default statutory rules as long as contractual provisions do not violate public policy

    In fact, prior case law had consistently upheld the validity of contractually shortened limitations periods; such provisions could be avoided only where the insured could establish waiver on the part of the insurer or estoppel. See McIntyre v. Michigan State Ins Co, 52 Mich 188; 17 NW 781 (1883); Law v. New England Mut Accident Ass'n, 94 Mich 266; 53 NW 1104 (1892); Turner v. Fidelity Cas Co, 112 Mich 425; 70 NW 898 (1897) (insurance company waived one-year limitation by conduct); Harris v. Phoenix Accident Sick Benefit Ass'n, 149 Mich 285; 112 NW 935 (1907) (failure of the insured to sue within six months was not waived); Friedberg v. Ins Co of North America, 257 Mich 291; 241 NW 183 (1932) (where settlement negotiations are broken off by the insurer near the end of the contractual limitations period, the provision was deemed waived); Hall v. Metro Life Ins Co, 274 Mich 196; 264 NW 340 (1936); Barza v. Metro Life Ins Co, 281 Mich 532; 275 NW 238 (1937) (the plaintiff was bound by two-year limitations clause where there was no evidence of waiver or estoppel); Bashans v. Metro Mut Ins Co, 369 Mich 141; 119 NW2d 622 (1963) (insurer did not waive two-year "binding" limitations clause); Better Valu Homes, Inc v. Preferred Mut Ins Co, 60 Mich App 315; 230 NW2d 412 (1975). In Camelot Excavating Co, Inc v. St Paul Fire Marine Ins Co, this Court expanded upon the "reasonableness" dicta articulated in Tom Thomas.

  3. Camelot Excavating Co. v. St Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

    410 Mich. 118 (Mich. 1981)   Cited 34 times
    In Camelot Excavating Co, Inc v St Paul Fire Marine Ins Co, 410 Mich. 118; 301 N.W.2d 275 (1981), we upheld the enforceability against a subcontractor of a contractual one-year period of limitation on suit in a labor and materials payment bond.

    The Tom Thomas Organization, Inc v Reliance Ins Co, 396 Mich. 588, 592; 242 N.W.2d 396 (1976). See also Barza v Metropolitan Life Ins Co, 281 Mich. 532, 538; 275 N.W. 238 (1937); Turner v Fidelity Casualty Co of New York, 112 Mich. 425, 427; 70 N.W. 898 (1897). This rule has been held to apply in contracts bonding the performance of building or construction projects.

  4. Goosen v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America

    234 F.2d 463 (6th Cir. 1956)   Cited 6 times

    The law is well established that an insurer by contract provisions of its policy may limit the time within which suit may be brought on the policy. Gifford v. Travelers Protective Ass'n of America, 9 Cir., 153 F.2d 209; Reynolds v. Detroit Fidelity Surety Co., 6 Cir., 19 F.2d 110; Barza v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 281 Mich. 532, 275 N.W. 238, 112 A.L.R. 1283; Betteys v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 222 Mich. 626, 193 N.W. 197; Dahrooge v. Rochester German Insurance Co., 177 Mich. 442, 143 N.W. 608, 48 L.R.A., N.S., 906; Barry Finan Lumber Co. v. Citizens' Insurance Co., 136 Mich. 42, 98 N.W. 761; Shackett v. People's Mutual Benefit Society. 107 Mich. 65, 64 N.W. 875. In the present action the provision in the indemnity bond that suit could not be brought thereon after the expiration of 15 months from the discovery by Yellowstone of the fraudulent and dishonest acts of its employees, was a valid limitation and was not waived by Indemnity.

  5. Bashans v. Metro Mutual Ins. Co.

    369 Mich. 141 (Mich. 1963)   Cited 10 times
    In Bashans v. Metro Mutual Ins. Co., 369 Mich. 141, 119 N.W.2d 622, defendant in answer to a letter of plaintiff's counsel of February 15, 1957 wrote that a representative of defendant would call on plaintiff's counsel in ten days. No such call was made and suit was not begun until February 10, 1959, long after the time limitation for bringing the action.

    See, also, Lombardi v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 271 Mich. 265. In Barza v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 281 Mich. 532 (112 ALR 1283), the plaintiff, an employee of the Fisher Body Corporation, was covered by a group insurance policy providing for the payment of total and permanent disability benefits under proper circumstances. Said policy contained a provision imposing a 2-year time limit on suits for recovery of such benefits.

  6. Szymanski v. Life Ins. Co.

    304 Mich. 483 (Mich. 1943)   Cited 15 times
    Denying recovery where coverage terminated with termination of employment, and employee knew his employment had terminated

    We have held that provision for such notice was not necessary. Klat v. Chrysler Corp., 285 Mich. 241. Decedent was bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. Barza v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 281 Mich. 532. Appellant claims that the policy provided for a period of 31 days during which the owner of certificate could apply for insurance which amounted to 31 days of grace.