defendants from the fear of protracted litigation. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marlette Homes, Inc., 456 Mich. 511, 515, 573 N.W.2d 611, 613 (1998). The rationale behind the Pohutski decision was entirely different. According to the Michigan Supreme Court, the April 2, 2002 cut-off date was designed to protect those litigants who relied on the Michigan Supreme Court’s prior ruling in Hadfield when making insurance decisions and who otherwise would not be covered under 2001 PA 222. Pohutski at 697-98, 641 N.W.2d 219. The statute of limitations and the Pohutski cutoff date protect different parties, and tolling the Pohutski cut-off date would contravene the plain language of the Michigan Supreme Court, which I cannot do. See Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Morris, 273 F.2d 452 (6th Cir.1960) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs also contend that since the
holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states holding that when applying state law this court follows the decision of the highest state court or in the absence of such a decision and any indication that the highest court would rule differently the decisions of the states intermediate courts holding that federal courts must accept the decision of the states highest court even if it is an erroneous one holding that federal courts may not substitute them reading of a state statute for that of the states highest court holding that when there is no ruling by the states highest court it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide