Meemic Insurance Company v. Bailey James Bischer

Michigan Court of Appeals

Meemic Insurance Company v. Bailey James Bischer

DecidedFebruary 13, 2018

Docket335126

StatusPublished

This text of Meemic Insurance Company v. Bailey James Bischer (Meemic Insurance Company v. Bailey James Bischer) 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

Meemic Insurance Company v. Bailey James Bischer, (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR PUBLICATION MEEMIC INSURANCE COMPANY, February 13, 2018

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 335126 Huron Circuit Court BARBARA JANE BISCHER, Individually and as LC No. 16-105387-CK Next Friend of BAILEY JAMES BISCHER, a Minor, GARY DUANE BISCHER, and JACQUELINE G. BRAUN, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF BRANDON MICHAEL DICKERT,

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: METER, P.J., and SAWYER and SHAPIRO, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring).

I concur with the majority but write separately to emphasize, as the majority notes, that “we need not determine what does constitute a sufficient connection with the residence premises,” and that scenarios distinguishable from the instant case may result in a different outcome. Thus, although I agree that permissive use of a non-contiguous trail is not “use . . . in connection with,” I would reach a different conclusion had the accident occurred on a common trail that ran through two or several contiguous properties including that of the policyholder.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

-1-

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

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR PUBLICATION MEEMIC INSURANCE COMPANY, February 13, 2018

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 335126 Huron Circuit Court BARBARA JANE BISCHER, Individually and as LC No. 16-105387-CK Next Friend of BAILEY JAMES BISCHER, a Minor, GARY DUANE BISCHER, and JACQUELINE G. BRAUN, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF BRANDON MICHAEL DICKERT,

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: METER, P.J., and SAWYER and SHAPIRO, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring).

I concur with the majority but write separately to emphasize, as the majority notes, that “we need not determine what does constitute a sufficient connection with the residence premises,” and that scenarios distinguishable from the instant case may result in a different outcome. Thus, although I agree that permissive use of a non-contiguous trail is not “use . . . in connection with,” I would reach a different conclusion had the accident occurred on a common trail that ran through two or several contiguous properties including that of the policyholder.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

-1-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Meemic Insurance Company v. Bailey James Bischer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meemic-insurance-company-v-bailey-james-bischer-michctapp-2018.