Wells v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the plaintiff-employee of a subsidiary, who disregarded separate corporate forms in order to obtain worker’s compensation benefits from the parent corporation, could not then rely on existence of separate corporate forms to maintain a tort action
• disregarding corporate distinction between employer and subsidiary where allowing suit would have contravened public policy behind workers’ compensation statute
• the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is typically applied to protect a corporation’s creditors where the corporate entity has been used to avoid legal obligations
• “If a statute is to be construed liberally when an employee seeks benefits, it should not be construed differently when the employer asserts it as a defense to a tort action”
• \We recognize the general principle that in Michigan separate entities will be respected.\
• “We recognize the general principle that in Michigan separate entities will be respected.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Wells v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Wells v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 1980-06-03· cited 11×