From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LaForest v. Vincent Steel

Supreme Court of Michigan
Dec 8, 1975
395 Mich. 364 (Mich. 1975)

Opinion

Docket No. 57136.

Decided December 8, 1975.

George E. Ganos for defendants Vincent Steel Processing, Division of Letts Industries, and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company.

Lacey Jones (by Hayim I. Gross) for defendants Vincent Steel Processing Company and Home Indemnity Company. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and A.C. Stoddard and Richard F. Zapala, Assistants Attorney General, for defendant Silicosis and Dust Disease Fund.

LeVasseur, Werner, Mitseff Brown (by Grahame G. Capp) for defendant Michigan Mutual Liability Company.


MEMORANDUM OPINION. The application for leave to appeal filed on behalf of defendant-appellant is considered, and the same is hereby granted as to issue I in the brief in support of appellant's application for leave to appeal concerning the apportioning of liability among successive insurers. As to all other issues, the application for leave to appeal is hereby denied, because the appellant has failed to persuade the Court that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

The motion to consolidate is considered, and the same is hereby denied as moot.

We grant as to issue I to consider the following statement of this Court:

"Although our legislature has provided for apportionment of liability among successive employers in certain cases (MCLA § 418.435 [Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 17.237(435)]), no similar provision has been made for apportioning liability among successive insurers of the same employer. It is for the legislature, and not this Court, to provide for such an apportionment if it is deemed appropriate." Sosnowski v Dandy Hamburger, 384 Mich. 221, 226, fn 3; 180 N.W.2d 761 (1970).

On such further consideration, we again conclude that we cannot construe this legislation as providing for apportionment among successive workmen's compensation insurance carriers. It is for the Legislature and not this Court to provide for such apportionment if deemed appropriate.

Pursuant to GCR 1963, 865.1(7), the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed.

T.G. KAVANAGH, C.J., and WILLIAMS, LEVIN, COLEMAN, FITZGERALD, and LINDEMER, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

LaForest v. Vincent Steel

Supreme Court of Michigan
Dec 8, 1975
395 Mich. 364 (Mich. 1975)
Case details for

LaForest v. Vincent Steel

Case Details

Full title:LaFOREST v VINCENT STEEL PROCESSING, DIVISION OF LETTS INDUSTRIES

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Dec 8, 1975

Citations

395 Mich. 364 (Mich. 1975)
235 N.W.2d 592

Citing Cases

Porter v. Great Lakes Steel

This interpretation is consistent with prior case law. Sosnowski v Dandy Hamburger, 384 Mich. 221, 226; 180…

Schoolenberg v. Meijer, Inc.

Questions of fact decided by the board are conclusive if the correct legal standard has been applied. Const…