Hayden v. Gokenbach

Michigan Court of Appeals

Hayden v. Gokenbach

476 N.W.2d 446, 190 Mich. App. 489

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 5, 1991

DocketDocket No. 104905

StatusPublished

This text of 476 N.W.2d 446 (Hayden v. Gokenbach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayden v. Gokenbach, 476 N.W.2d 446, 190 Mich. App. 489 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[490]*490AFTER REMAND

Before: Cynar, P.J., and Shepherd and Marilyn Kelly, JJ.

Marilyn Kelly, J.

This case involves the propriety of the Macomb Circuit Court’s decision to quash substituted service of the summons and complaint on the defendant’s insurer, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company.

In our previous opinion we held that, if Hartford is liable for plaintiff’s damages in the event defendant Gokenbach is found negligent, then the substituted service on Hartford was good. We remanded the case for a determination of whether Gokenbach was covered under the insurance policy, and we retained jurisdiction. Hayden v Gokenbach, 179 Mich App 594; 446 NW2d 332 (1989).

On remand, the trial court found that plaintiff was a named insured under the policy and that, since Gokenbach was driving with plaintiff’s permission, the policy covered him as well. These findings are not clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C). Thus, the substituted service on Hartford was proper.

The order quashing service is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI