W.B. Cenac Medical Service, P.C. v. Michigan Physicians Mut. Liability Co.
Decision Date | 15 March 1989 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 107397 |
Citation | 174 Mich.App. 676,436 N.W.2d 430 |
Parties | W.B. CENAC MEDICAL SERVICE, P.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHIGAN PHYSICIANS MUTUAL LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Barsky & Meth, P.C. by Seth H. Barsky, Southfield, for plaintiff.
Kerr, Russell & Weber by Daniel G. Beyer and Kenneth C. Harrison, Detroit, for defendant.
Before WAHLS, P.J., and McDONALD and SIMON, * JJ.
Plaintiff, W.B. Cenac Medical Service, P.C., appeals as of right from a January 22, 1988, order of the Calhoun Circuit Court denying the motion of plaintiff for summary disposition and granting the motion of defendant, Michigan Physicians Mutual Liability Company, for summary disposition. We reverse and remand for further proceedings, holding that, under an insurance policy insuring against loss of earnings due to business interruption caused by the destruction of business premises, an insured corporation should not be precluded from presenting arguments to a jury to support claims for the loss of earnings of a hypothetical employee who, but for the destruction of the business premises, could have generated earnings after the death of the corporation's sole income-generating employee and before the scheduled reopening of the corporation's business premises.
The record reveals that plaintiff is a professional corporation which operated a medical clinic and that Winston B. Cenac, D.O., was the sole corporate officer and income-generating employee. Defendant issued a property insurance policy to plaintiff which was effective from November 15, 1985, to November 15, 1986, and in which the named insureds were plaintiff, Dr. Cenac, and Dr. Cenac's wife, Noreen Cenac. Included in this policy was a business-interruption and loss-of-earnings clause, which provided, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis in original.)
The policy also required plaintiff to reduce its losses occasioned by a business interruption resulting from damage to its business premises either by using other premises or by repairing or replacing the damaged property as soon as possible.
On April 5, 1986, a fire at plaintiff's business premises caused property damage resulting in the loss of income from rent which would otherwise have been paid to plaintiff and from fees for professional services which would otherwise have been performed by Dr. Cenac. The projected date of restoration of the business premises was October 6, 1986. In conformity with the terms of its insurance policy, defendant began paying business-interruption benefits to plaintiff, benefits which included payment for the loss of earnings of Dr. Cenac. When in May, 1986, approximately six weeks after the fire, Dr. Cenac was killed in an airplane crash, defendant stopped paying for Dr. Cenac's loss of earnings. This prompted plaintiff to file a complaint against defendant contending that, under the terms of the insurance policy, it was entitled to payment for Dr. Cenac's loss of earnings until October 6, 1986, the projected date of restoration of the business premises, regardless of Dr. Cenac's death. After defendant filed an answer and list of affirmative defenses, plaintiff filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). In response, defendant also filed a motion for summary disposition under both MCR 2.116(C)(8) and 2.116(C)(10). Oral arguments were conducted and the trial court ruled in favor of defendant, stating:
Although the trial court failed to specifically identify the subrule under which it granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, it is clear that the court looked beyond the pleadings in deciding this issue. Thus, we will review the motion as having been granted under MCR 2.116(C)(10)--there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The standard for reviewing such a motion is well established:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dampier v. Wayne County
...with regard to this issue, we address this issue pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). W B Cenac Medical Service, PC v. Michigan Physicians Mut. Liability Co., 174 Mich.App. 676, 681, 436 N.W.2d 430 (1989). A motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10), based on the lack of a genu......
-
Nolan v. Bronson
...issue of material fact, tests whether there is factual support for a claim. W.B. Cenac Medical Service, P.C. v. Michigan Physicians Mutual Liability Co., 174 Mich.App. 676, 681, 436 N.W.2d 430 (1989). Considering the pleadings and evidence submitted by the parties, and giving the benefit of......
-
Alyas v. Gillard
...court should be liberal in finding that a genuine issue of material fact exists. W.B. Cenac Medical Service, P.C. v. Michigan Physicians Mutual Liability Co., 174 Mich.App. 676, 681, 436 N.W.2d 430 (1989). The parties have raised a number of issues on appeal. We have limited this review, ho......
-
Department of Social Services v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...The standard for this Court's review of such a motion was concisely set forth in W.B. Cenac Medical Service, P.C. v. Michigan Physicians Mutual Liability Co., 174 Mich.App. 676, 681, 436 N.W.2d 430 (1989): A motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10), based on the lack of......