Auto-Owners Insurance v. Martin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing “valid distinction” between exclusionary provision at issue and those voided in previous cases but holding that the distinction was immaterial
• noting that while “cases decided before November 1, 1990, are not binding precedent, MCR 7.215(J)(1), they nevertheless can be considered persuasive authority”
• “Insurance policy provisions that conflict with statutes are invalid . . . .”
• “Insurance policy provisions that conflict with statutes are invalid . . . .”
• \Insurance policy provisions that conflict with statutes are invalid....\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).