Michigan Township Participating Plan v. Pavolich

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that if a contract “fairly admits of but one interpretation, it may not be said to be ambiguous or fatally unclear.”
• holding that “a finding of surplusage does not equate to a finding of ambiguity”
• holding that “a finding of surplusage does not equate to a finding of ambiguity”
• holding a plain reading of a term might render some provisions meaningless
• rejecting a Scottr-Pontzer type argument that an employee of a village was covered under the village’s UM/UIM coverage
• noting in dicta that if the defendant qualified as the named insured, he could collect underinsured benefits even if he was not occupying the covered auto at the time of injury

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).