Heikkinen v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the plaintiff “had strictly complied with the contents requirements” of MCL 500.3145, but holding that notice was nonetheless insufficient because it did not “ ‘in fact apprise the insurer of the need to investigate and to determine the amount of possible liability’ ”
• statutory requirement of written notice requires words “presented in a form or under circumstances designed to ‘in fact apprise the insurer of the need to investigate and to determine the amount of possible liability of the insurer’s fund.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).