MEEMIC INSURANCE COMPANY V BAILEY JAMES BISCHER (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FOR PUBLICATION February 13, 2018 MEEMIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v BARBARA JANE BISCHER, Individually and as Next Friend of BAILEY JAMES BISCHER, a Minor, GARY DUANE BISCHER, and JACQUELINE G. BRAUN, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF BRANDON MICHAEL DICKERT, No. 335126 Huron Circuit Court LC No. 16-105387-CK Defendants-Appellees. Before: METER, P.J., and SAWYER and SHAPIRO, JJ. SHAPIRO, J. (concurring). I concur with the majority but write separately to emphasize, as the majority notes, that “we need not determine what does constitute a sufficient connection with the residence premises,” and that scenarios distinguishable from the instant case may result in a different outcome. Thus, although I agree that permissive use of a non-contiguous trail is not “use . . . in connection with,” I would reach a different conclusion had the accident occurred on a common trail that ran through two or several contiguous properties including that of the policyholder. /s/ Douglas B. Shapiro -1-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
