cause of action accrues when a contracting party fails to do what he is obligated to do under the contract
How later courts described this case
- cause of action accrues when a contracting party fails to do what he is obligated to do under the contract
- where demand for arbitration is condition precedent to right to sue for uninsured motorist benefits, cause of action accrued when insurer refused to submit to arbitration
- demand upon defendant insurer and defendant’s refusal "was the first point at which defendant could be considered to have breached the contract”
- demand on defendant insurer and defendant’s refusal “was the first point at which defendant could be considered to have breached the contract”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
M. F. Cavanagh, J.
(dissenting). I dissent only from my brothers’ conclusion that a remand is necessary for a determination of the amount of damages owed to plaintiff by defendant DAIIE. I disagree that the case of American Central Corp v Stevens Van Lines, 103 Mich App 507 ; 303 NW2d 234 (1981), is analogous. In that case, Stevens Van Lines was defaulted and the question arose as to whether the defendant could participate in the jury determination of damages thereafter. This Court held that it could. In this case, we have already indicated that the defendant waived its right to arbitration. There is nothing here that prevented the defendant from intervening in the principal suit if it desired to do so. It elected not to, and I would hold it bound by the terms of its policy to pay the insured whatever the insured is legally entitled to receive from the uninsured motorist. That amount has already been determined to be well in excess of the policy limits. I would hold that the trial court was correct in awarding plaintiff the policy limits and would not remand to allow the defendant to relitigate the damage question.
I would affirm the ruling of the trial court.