Learn more about Sinas Dramis

Injured? Contact us for a free consultation

   

Celina Mutual Insurance Company v Aetna Life & Casualty Company; (COA-UNP, 6/23/1988; RB #1326)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 95658; Unpublished  
Judges Maher, R.S. Gribbs, and Simmons; Per Curiam    
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:  Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt  


STATUTORY INDEXING:  
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]

TOPICAL INDEXING: 
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)   


CASE SUMMARY: 
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary disposition in favor of Plaintiff Celina Mutual in a case where Celina sought to hold Aetna liable under its omnibus liability clause for damages sustained when Russell Naasko was electrocuted during the process of loading pipes with a boom truck. 

For a more detailed description of the facts, see the preceding item, 1325.  

The Court of Appeals decision turned upon the interpretation of the omnibus clause in Aetna's no-fault policy and whether Corrosion Control was "using" the boom truck within the meaning of the omnibus clause when Naasko was injured.  

The Court of Appeals held that Corrosion Control was "using" the boom truck within the meaning of the clause when it had BLH use and transport the pipes from its premises to a location specified by Shell Oil Company pursuant to the contract entered into between Corrosion Control and Shell Oil Company. Therefore, Corrosion Control was an insured within the meaning of the omnibus clause in Aetna's policy. The Court of Appeals found that plaintiff did plead a cause of action; therefore, the trial court was correct in denying defendant's motion for summary disposition.  

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision for the reasons stated in its opinion which is summarized in the preceding Item 1325.  

Copyright © 2019 Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)