Stryker Corp. v. XL Insurance America

5 Citing cases

  1. Stryker Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh

    842 F.3d 422 (6th Cir. 2016)   Cited 23 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the "inherent subjectivity" of the testimony of an insurer's former claims adjusters and underwriters made it "insufficient for the purpose of detecting a latent ambiguity" and concluding that "the plain language of the written instrument" was controlling

    Fifteen years by our count. See Stryker Corp. v. XL Ins. Am. , 576 Fed.Appx. 496 (6th Cir. 2014) ; Stryker Corp. v. XL Ins. Am. , 735 F.3d 349 (6th Cir. 2012) ; Stryker Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. , 681 F.3d 819 (6th Cir. 2012). That insurance-coverage dispute, in its current incarnation, requires us to interpret the "consent-to-settle" provision of an excess-liability policy.

  2. City of Grosse Pointe v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co.

    Case No. 18-cv-13428 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 24, 2020)

    "The purpose of the statute is to penalize insurers who fail to timely pay benefits." Stryker Corp. v. XL Ins. Am., 576 Fed. Appx. 496, 504 (6th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). The Sixth Circuit has determined that an award of penalty interest pursuant to MCL 500.2006 applies to untimely benefits and when benefits are not paid at all.

  3. Varner v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

    Case No. 17-10082 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2017)   Cited 1 times
    Rejecting a discovery rule exception to the statute of limitations because "[t]he [p]olicy plainly requires that the insured commence the action ‘within one year after the date of loss or damage’ " and did not "provide that the action may be commenced within one year of the insured's discovery of the loss or damage"

    The purpose of M.C.L. § 500.2006 is "to penalize insurers who fail to timely pay benefits." Stryker Corp. v. XL Ins. Am., 576 F. App'x 496, 504 (6th Cir. 2014). "It applies when the insurance company is dilatory in making timely payments to the insured."

  4. Stryker Corp. v. XL Ins. Co.

    Case No. 1:05-CV-51 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    (Stryker I, Jgmt., ECF No. 1215.) This judgment was affirmed on appeal. Stryker Corp. v. XL Ins. Am., Inc., 576 F. App'x 496 (6th Cir. 2014). Stryker contends that if the amount of XL's overpayment is not added into the principal amount due, TIG would obtain an undeserved windfall.

  5. Stryker Corp. v. XL Insurance

    57 F. Supp. 3d 823 (W.D. Mich. 2014)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    However, for purposes of this opinion, the issue is limited to whether TIG is liable for Stryker's direct settlements of the Uni–Knee claims. The history of these cases is set forth in detail in the following Sixth Circuit opinions: Stryker Corp. v. XL Insurance America, 735 F.3d 349 (6th Cir.2012) (“Stryker I Appeal ”); Stryker Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 681 F.3d 819 (6th Cir.2012) (“Stryker II Appeal ”); Stryker Corp. v. XL Insurance America, 576 Fed.Appx. 496 (6th Cir.2014). The reasonableness of the Stryker settlements is not in dispute.