Lewis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 26 August 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 57761,57761 |
Citation | 245 N.W.2d 9,397 Mich. 481 |
Parties | Robert E. LEWIS and Elsie M. Lewis, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation licensed to do business in Michigan, Defendant-Appellant. 397 Mich. 481, 245 N.W.2d 9 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
John B. Pruchnicki, Flint, for defendant-appllant.
Sanford Kesten, Flint, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant's application for leave to appeal asks that we resolve a conflict between panels of the Court of Appeals on the meaning of 'total and irrecoverable loss of sight of one eye' 1 in an insurance contract. In Sump v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 21 Mich.App. 160, 175 N.W.2d 44 (1970), Sidney Sump suffered a reduction in vision in the left eye, correctable to 20/200. The Court of Appeals refused to equate 'entire loss of sight' with loss of 'useful sight' or 'practical use':
'If it appears that the insured still has some sight in the injured eye, he is not entitled to recover under a provision in the policy which provides that the loss of an eye shall mean the irrecoverable loss of the entire sight thereof. Under the present Michigan law, a 75% Or 80% Loss of an eye is not loss of the entire sight, as required by the terms of the policy in question. Such an injured eye may have little practical use and it may come within the meaning of industrial loss of vision, but for this Court to find such a total loss of sight, we would have to change the meaning of the policy language, Viz., 'irrecoverable loss of the entire sight." 21 Mich.App. 160, 164, 175 N.W.2d 44, 46.
Robert E. Lewis suffered a choroidal tear in his right eye as a result of a motorcycle accident. He lost 80% Of his vision in the right eye. In a deposition, his doctor stated:
Relying on Sump, the circuit judge granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed:
'In our view, the Sump court failed to apply an important principle of interpretation, namely: ascertaining that meaning of the contract which the insured would reasonably expect, Zurich Insurance Co. v. Rombough, 384 Mich. 228, 233, 180 N.W.2d 775, 777 (1970).
65 Mich.App. 279, 280, 237 N.W.2d 289, 290 (1975).
Pursuant to GCR 853.2(4), we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the circuit court for trial.
Plaintiff has not been allowed to testify as to the extent of his incapacity. Presumably, if allowed to hear his and other testimony, the trier of fact would be better able than this Court to determine whether plaintiff's right eye is or can be of any practical use or benefit to him.
The existence of peripheral vision in the injured eye does present a close factual question. However, close factual questions are the stuff of which trials are made and are not properly subject to disposition on motions for summary judgment. As was stated in Clark v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., 43 Cal.App.2d 563, 568, 570, 111 P.2d 353, 112 P.2d 298, 299 (1941):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arnold v. Life Ins. Co. of North America
...to refer to whether a claimant's "eye is or can be of any practical use or benefit to the insured." Lewis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 397 Mich. 481, 245 N.W.2d 9, 11 (1976); accord Massachusetts Indem. & Life Ins. Co. v. Schupper, 301 So.2d 789, 791 (Fla.App.1974), cert. denied, 312 So.2......
-
Comerica Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
...St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 21 Mich.App. 160, 175 N.W.2d 44 (1970), disapproved of on other grounds by Lewis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 397 Mich. 481, 245 N.W.2d 9 (1976)). "If the provisions of a policy are clear and unambiguous, the court applies the terms in their `plain, ordina......
-
Cotton v. Provident Life and Cas. Ins. Co.
...Ark. 244, 91 S.W.2d 271, 273 (1936); Lewis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 65 Mich.App. 279, 237 N.W.2d 289, 290 (1975), aff'd, 397 Mich. 481, 245 N.W.2d 9 (1976); Reliable Life Ins. Co. v. Steptoe, 471 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tex.Civ.App.1971); Clark v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 43 Cal.App.2d 56......
-
Rice v. Military Sales & Service Co.
...(10th Cir. 1940) 112 F.2d 679, 682; Roy v. Allstate Ins. Co., (1978) 34 Conn.Sup. 650, 383 A.2d 637, 638; Lewis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., (1976) 397 Mich. 481, 245 N.W.2d 9, 11; 3 Brinson v. Old Republic Life Insurance Company, (1957) 247 N.C. 85, 100 S.E.2d 246, 248. And this is the r......